PARMESHWAR ARJUN PAREEK Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, & 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been preferred by the applicant requesting to condone the delay of 1181 days, cause in preferring the main revision application challenging the order dated 18.07.2014 passed in PLMA Case No.03/2014 pending before PMLA Court, Ahmedabad Rural.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr R. J. Goswami, appearing for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. Siddhart Dave for Mr. Devang Vyas, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. K. L. Pandya for the respondent No.2 i.e. State. Perused the record. One surprising and disturbing position is to be dealt with, however considering the observations by the Honourable Supreme Court in several cases, I would try to restrict my discussion and determination to the points involved in the matter.

(3.) It is undisputed fact that, co-accused of the present application have preferred similar Criminal Miscellaneous Application (for condonation of delay) No. 31168 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay of 768 days in preferring final revision petition challenging the issuance of summons against them under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA for short) . Such Criminal Miscellaneous Application was allowed by judgment and order dated 9-12-2016. Thereby, delay of 768 days in filing such revision petition has been condoned. It is undisputed fact that pursuant to condonation of such delay in filing Criminal Revision Application No. 926 of 2016, the revision application was taken up for hearing and by judgment and order dated 16.02.2017, the same was allowed by a reasoned order by the co-ordinate bench by allowing the revision application and thereby, after relying upon several decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court and considering the factual details, the co-ordinate bench has held as under: -