SHOBHA KARANDLAJE Vs. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is calling into question the show cause notice, dated 24.2.2014(Annexure -D) issued by the first respondent Adjudicating Authority. It appears to have been issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 8 of the Prevention of Money -Laundering Act, 2002 ('the said Act' for short) read with Regulation 12 of Chapter -V of the Adjudicating Authority Regulations, 2006 ('the said Regulations' for short). It calls upon the petitioner to indicate the source of her income out of which or by means of which, she has acquired the property attached under Section 5(1) of the said Act. Further, it calls upon her to show cause as to why the provisional attachment order in respect of the properties should not be confirmed as representing proceeds of crime being value of the properties involved in the money laundering.

(3.) SRI S.K.V.Chalapathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri R.Swaroop Anand for the petitioner submits that the Adjudicating Authority has to record the reasons for issuing the notice. As the mandatory requirement of recording the reasons is not complied with, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed. He brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the said Act.