Background 

In the case of Kankipati Rajesh v Adjudicating Authority Kankipati Rajesh, the petitioner had purchased two immovable properties in Surat, Gujarat, for a specific sale consideration, according to PMLA & Ors. For purchasing illegal property, an FIR was filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.a motion to set aside an order from the adjudicating authority dated March 6, 2023, by which the petitioner’s request for the right to cross-examine witnesses had been denied. The petitioner’s attorney informed the court that the Authority had used wording that was considered inappropriate in Dr. US Awasthi’s ruling.

Analysis of Court Order 

The Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was recently warned by the Delhi High Court single judge bench Justice Prathiba M Singh against the repeated use of “templated paragraphs” and “disconcerting language” in its orders. In response to the petitioner’s claim that the Adjudicating Authority had violated the principles of natural justice, the Adjudicating Authority had stated that “it is always open to the accused of the alleged offenders to make more noise about.

The Delhi High Court notes that the adjudicating authority’s disturbing tone and repetitive use of templated terminology would be dealt with directly. It is not acceptable and goes against the fundamentals of natural justice. The current order should be viewed as a warning to the relevant authorities to refrain from using such language; otherwise, the Court will have to order that action be done.

The Bench emphasised that the High Court had expressed its disapproval of the use of such unsettling terminology in the matter of Dr. US Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority PMLA & Anr., noting that the Authority had neglected to take this into account. The Authority added that “such noise can be heard very regularly in these types of issues with a view to slow down the proceedings and frustrate the efforts of the authorities involved to identify the perpetrators to the crime in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. As a result, this Court is hesitant to consider the current writ petition. The Petitioner is only left with the option of exercising its legal right to appeal.