Mukesh Talreja vs The Directorate Of Enforcement And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010157692025

WP- 1488-2025.doc
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2025
Mukesh Talreja,
Age: 50, Director,
M/s Chellaram Mills Pvt. Ltd.
th
2901, 26 floor, One Altamount Building,
Altamount Road, Cumballa Hills,
Mumbai – 400026 …Petitioner
Digitally signed
by
RUSHIKESH
VISHNU PATIL
Date:
2026.10.21
14:47:43
+0530
RUSHIKESH
VISHNU
PATIL
Versus
1. The Directorate of Enforcement,
Headquarters Investigation Unit,
rd
Pravartan Bhavan, 03 Floor,
Block B, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Road,
New Delhi.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai …Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Ashutosh Singh a/w Mr. Mahesh Reddy for the Petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap, for Respondent No.1.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
th
DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2026
1/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
JUDGMENT [Per Ashish S. Chavan J.] :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court
challenging the seizure of documents, digital devices and locker
under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(“PMLA”). It is his case that on 21.02.2022, the Enforcement
Directorate (“ED”) conducted a raid at various places including the
office premises of Petitioner and seized documents, digital devices
and freezed Locker No. 1643 belonging to the Petitioner under
Panchnamas. Aggrieved by this action of the ED, the Petitioner has
approached this Court.
3. The chronology of events which is germane to decide the issue
that falls for our consideration is as follows:-
3.1. On 16.04.2021, the Respondent No.1 – ED recorded
ECIR No. ECIR/07/HIU/2021 predicated upon FIR No.
0129 of 2021 registered at Wada Police Station,
2/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
wherein, the Petitioner was an accused.
3.2. On 17.03.2022, the ED filed OA No. 646 of 2022
before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) seeking
retention of the seized materials and confirmation of the
freezing order dated 21.02.2022.
3.3. On 30.03.2022, the Adjudicating Authority issued a
Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner directing the
submission of a written reply on or before 12.05.2022.
The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the Show
Cause Notice within the stipulated time frame.
3.4. On 04.05.2022, this Court quashed FIR No. 0129 of
2021 which formed the predicate offence of the
aforesaid ECIR.
3.5. On 02.08.2022, the Petitioner appeared before the
Adjudicating Authority and informed him that no
predicate offence subsisted against the Petitioner.
3/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
3.6. The ED approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court
challenging this Court’s order dated 04.05.2022. On
26.09.2022, the Delhi High Court quashed the present
ECIR, noting that without a predicate offence,
proceedings under PMLA could not be sustained. This
decision of the Delhi High Court was carried to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by ED.
3.7. In the meanwhile, considering that 180 days had lapsed
since the seizure dated 21.02.2022, the Petitioner
requested ED to de-freeze the locker and release the
documents and digital devices (“articles”) of the
Petitioner.
3.8. On 12.02.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed off
the SLPs arising from the challenge to the orders of this
Court and that of the Delhi High Court.
3.9. On 04.03.2024, a Review Petition was filed by M/s
Indiabulls and Ors., seeking recall/modification of the
order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 12.02.2024.
4/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
3.10. On 23.07.2024, the ED filed an Application under
Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Wada. In the meanwhile, the
Petitioner kept on requesting ED to release the seized
property but to no avail.
3.11. On 29.07.2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon
consideration, modified/clarified a part of the order
dated 12.02.2024, thereby disposing of the Review
Petition.
3.12. On 01.10.2024, JMFC, Wada rejected the Application
filed for further investigation by ED.
4. Heard Mr. Singh for the Petitioner, Ms. Jagtap for
Respondent No. 1. Perused the Petition and the documents annexed
with it.
5. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner
is that a period of 180 days from the seizure is prescribed by Section
20 of PMLA during which the ED can retain or continue to freeze
5/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
any property which has been seized under Section 17 of PMLA.
Since, the seizure was conducted on 21.02.2022, the period of 180
days has expired long ago. In the absence of any permission from
the Adjudicating Authority to permit retention or continuation of
freezing beyond a period of 180 days, the property shall be returned
to the person from whom it was seized. In the absence of any
confirmation order and the lapse of more than 180 days from the
date of the seizure, its continued retention is illegal and hence, must
be set aside. The second limb of submission by learned counsel for
the Petitioner is that the predicate offence as well as the ECIR have
been quashed by Courts of competent jurisdiction and this
quashment has now reached finality with the disposal of the review
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, even otherwise, no
prosecution under the provisions of PMLA can continue against the
Petitioner.
6. Ms. Jagtap, learned retainer counsel for ED has fairly
submitted that it is factually correct that a period of 180 days has
elapsed since the date of seizure, however, she invited our attention
to a proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
6/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
1
Citizens Whistle Blower Forum Vs. Union of India and ors and has
placed before us copies of several orders passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 08.10.2025 and 09.11.2025. She would urge
that by various orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had given
certain directions to ED pursuant to which the ED filed a Status
Report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said Status Report
which is placed before us, retainer Counsel for ED has invited our
attention to a reference whereby, it is averred that, one Jasol
Investments and Trading Company Private Limited which had
received funds from Indiabulls Housing Finance Private Limited,
indirectly had made huge profits which has been siphoned of. In this
context, the Status Report mentions that Jasol had borrowed funds
of Rs. 125 Crores from the Petitioner.
7. Although, learned counsel for the Petitioner has pressed into
service the argument that since the predicate offence against the
Petitioner was extinguished, the articles of the Petitioner retained by
the ED may be returned back to him and the frozen locker of the
Petitioner may be de-freezed, we do not find necessary to examine
this argument for the simple reason that the ED has not contested
1. SLP (C) NO(S) 2993/2025
7/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
the fact that a period of 180 days has elapsed from the date of the
seizure and by operation of law the ED has lost its authority to
retain or freeze the said articles.
8. Setting out the provisions dealing with the aforesaid aspect,
we note that Section 17 of PMLA deals with search and seizure. It
authorizes the Director or any other officer not below the rank of
Deputy Director authorized by him for the purposes of this section
to enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft
where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of
crime are kept, seize the said records or property found as a result
of such search, make a note or an inventory of such record or
property and in case it is not practicable to seize such record or
property, he may make an order to freeze such property.
Immediately upon such seizure, search or freezing order, he is
required to forward a copy of the same along with the reasons
assigned by him to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope
and within a period of thirty days from such seizure or freezing as
the case may be file an application, requesting for retention of such
record or property or continuation of such freezing order before the
Adjudicating Authority.
8/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
In the facts of the present case, on 21.02.2022 the ED has
conducted search in terms of Section 17 of PMLA and under
Panchnamas, seized the record and properties namely documents
and digital devices found at the relevant places and frozen the
locker in terms of Section 17 of the PMLA. In terms of Sub Section
4 of Section 17, the ED has filed OA No. 646 of 2022 before the
Adjudicating Authority seeking retention of the seized material and
confirmation of freezing order dated 21.02.2022.
9. A perusal of the record indicates that the Petitioner had
submitted a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice on 12.05.2022
followed by a hearing on 02.08.2022 during which the Petitioner
informed the Adjudicating Authority that no predicate offence
subsisted against the Petitioner.
Here it would be apposite to advert to Sub Section 1 of
Section 20 of PMLA which sets out that the property which is
seized under Section 17 can continue to remain frozen or retained
for a period of 180 days from the date on which such property was
seized or frozen, as the case may be and Sub Section 3 provides that
on the expiry of 180 days, the property shall be returned to the
9/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
person from whom such property was seized or whose property was
ordered to be frozen, unless the Adjudicating Authority permits
retention or continuation of freezing of such property beyond the
said period.
10. As mentioned hereinabove, the ED has not disputed the fact
that the period of 180 days has lapsed from the date of seizure of
articles and freezing of locker. It is also not in dispute that there is
no order of the Adjudicating Authority permitting retention of the
articles or continuation of the freezing of the locker beyond such
period. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that
there is no confirmation of the order in terms of Section 8 of
PMLA, although the Petitioner had responded to the show cause
notice of ED and participated in the hearing conducted by the
Adjudicating Authority. Thus, we find substance in the argument of
the learned counsel for the Petitioner that by operation of law and
efflux of time, the ED has lost the authority to continue to retain
the articles or permit the continuation of the freezing of the locker.
In such circumstances, the prayer of the Petitioner deserves to be
answered in the affirmative. Consequently, the Petition succeeds and
hence the following order.
10/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02

WP- 1488-2025.doc
ORDER
A. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
Clause (A) of the Petition.
B. The Respondent No. 1-ED is directed to release
and hand over possession of Locker No. 1643 at M/s. India
Safety Vaults Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai to the Petitioner and to
return all documents and digital devices seized from the
Petitioner during the search conducted on 21.02.2022
within a week from the date of this order.
C. Rule is made absolute.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
11/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:04:02
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)