Seized Records Can Be Retained Till Trial | AT-SAFEMA

Case Details: Rishi Kamlesh Agarwal v. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 306 (SAFEMA - New Delhi) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman & V. Anandarajan, Member
• Yash Agarwal, Hardik Sharma & Yugant Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Aditya Singla, Stnd. Counsel & Siddarth Singhal, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent conducted a search on the appellants and seized documents and digital devices pertaining to the appellants. Accordingly, an Original Application was sent to the Adjudicating Authority under section 17(4) of the PMLA, 2002, for retention of seized records.

The Adjudicating Authority allowed retention of records seized by respondents during the course of the search. The appellants filed a present appeal contending that retention of records and property seized during the course of investigation was allowed illegally and without any justification.
It was noted that the seized record had been made part of the prosecution complaint, and once it was relied upon by the prosecution in the complaint, it was for the purpose of using it in evidence, and the Special Court, PMLA, became the custodian of the records.

Tribunal Held

The Appellate Tribunal held that the retention of records is not only for the purpose of investigation, but if it is found relevant and becomes part of a prosecution complaint, it is to be retained till the conclusion of the trial unless the Special Court, PMLA, trying a criminal case passes an order in that regard.

Therefore, releasing seized records for any reason at that stage might affect the trial and overreach the jurisdiction of the Special Court. Thus, the order of the Adjudicating Authority was to be upheld.