Page 154 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

64 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

proceeds of crime. Therefore, retention of the documents/articles seized during
search dated 22-3-2018 as well as freezing order restraining debit transactions in
DMAT Account No. 1201910103642803 and DMAT Account No.
1201910103642797 was allowed during pendency of proceedings relating to any
offence under the PMLA.
17. Original Application No. 242 of 2018 was filed under Section 17(4)
of PMLA before Learned Adjudicating Authority praying for continuation of
freezing orders dated 14-6-2018 with respect to :
(i) 64,94,891 shares of M/s. KRBL owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(ii) an amount of Rs. 30,35,006.90 available in Account No.
000405071796 with ICICI Bank, CP, New Delhi.
18. Accordingly, vide an order dated 5-12-2018, Learned Adjudicating
Authority allowed Original Application No. 242 of 2018 and ordered continuance
of freezing orders dated 14-6-2018 pertaining to :
(i) 64,94,891 shares of M/s. KRBL owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(ii) an amount of Rs. 30,35,006.90 available in Account No.
000405071796 with ICICI Bank, CP, New Delhi during the pendency
of any proceedings relating to any offence under PMLA.
19. Being aggrieved by orders of Learned Adjudicating Authority dat-
ed 10-9-2018 and 5-12-2018, respondent No. 1 herein preferred an appeal to the
Tribunal as provided by the PMLA. However, said Tribunal vide impugned or-
der dated 29-8-2019 partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 by
recording as under :
“107. As of today, there is no evidence available on record against the ap-
pellants. They are not charge-sheeted. No prosecution complaint is pend-
ing, however, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and to strike the
balance in the present circumstances and the nature of case and in view of
investigation is sub-judice by the police under scheduled offence against
other parties. Without prejudice, the appellants are directed to execute the
indemnity bond by way of an undertaking to the tune of 111 crores within
four weeks as a surety that if it was found by producing evidence in trial
and directed by the Court, at the time of passing the final judgment while
coming to the conclusion that the ledger entry in the account of RAKGT is
part of the bribe amount, the appellants shall deposit the said amount with
the respondent as equivalent to value thereof. The liberty is also granted to
the appellants to move the application before the Special Court for waiving
of such condition if charges are not framed against the appellants.
108. All the four appeals are partly allowed by modifying the impugned
orders, on the compliance is made as per terms mentioned in the preceding
paras within the period of one month. Once the compliance is made, all
shares shall stand de-freezed as the same are admittedly not acquired from
proceed of crime.”
20. Being aggrieved the applicant/appellant has filed the present ap-
peal along with present application i.e. CRL. M.A. 1518/2018 under Section 5 of
Limitation Act, 1973 seeking condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal.
21. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that it is settled law that a
law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim “interest reipublicaeut sit finislitium”
i.e. it is for the general welfare that there should be an end to litigation.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  154