### Strict Adherence to Condonation Timelines Under Section 42 PMLA Cannot Be Circumvented Through Excessive Re-filing Delays Summary: Procedural History: The Appellant challenged an order of the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal regarding the release of seized documents. There was a 225-day delay in re-filing the appeal. Key Issues: 1. Whether a substantial delay in re-filing an appeal can be condoned given the strict timelines prescribed under Section 42 of the PMLA. 2. Whether the Court should interfere with a Tribunal order directing the release of only those documents not forming part of a prosecution complaint. Court’s Reasoning: 1. Statutory Limitation: The Court noted that Section 42 of the PMLA imposes a strict 60+60 day limit for filing appeals. Allowing an appellant to leave a filing under defect for seven months would effectively bypass the legislature's intent for a restricted limitation period. 2. Sufficiency of Cause: The Appellant’s justification—that documents were "dim" or "handwritten" and required typing—was rejected as the record appeared sufficiently legible. 3. Execution vs. Merits: The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision to retain documents currently before the Special Court while releasing others. If the respondent fails to comply with the release order, the proper remedy is to seek enforcement under Section 35(3) of the PMLA, not a fresh appeal. Decision: The appeal was dismissed both on the grounds of delay in re-filing and on merits, with liberty to the appellant to seek enforcement of the original order.

The Appellant challenged an order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, which directed the partial release of documents and digital devices seized under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Specifically, the Tribunal ordered the return of items not included in the prosecution complaint within one month, while allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to retain items forming part of the complaint.

The Appellant filed the present appeal with a 225-day delay in re-filing, citing the need to transcribe illegible documents and difficulties in obtaining records as he was not a named accused in the ECIR.

1. Whether the delay of 225 days in re-filing the appeal can be condoned given the statutory limitations under Section 42 of the PMLA.

2. Whether the directions passed by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the retention and release of seized documents/devices were legally infirm.

Section 42 of the PMLA, which mandates that an appeal to the High Court must be filed within 60 days, with a discretionary power to condone delay for a further period not exceeding 60 days if sufficient cause is shown.

Section 35(3) of the PMLA regarding the enforcement of orders passed by the Tribunal.

Historically, while courts are liberal regarding re-filing delays, such discretion is tempered by the strict timelines of special statutes like the PMLA to prevent bypassing legislative intent.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s justification for the 225-day re-filing delay, noting that the annexed documents were largely legible photocopies and did not warrant a seven-month delay for "typing fair copies".

The Court observed that Section 42 of the PMLA imposes a strict 120-day limit (60+60) for filing; allowing a 225-day delay in re-filing would effectively bypass this statutory restriction.

On merits, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order, noting that items forming part of a prosecution complaint must remain in the custody of the Special Court.

The Appellant’s grievance—the non-compliance of the ED with the Tribunal's order—should be addressed via enforcement proceedings under Section 35(3) of the PMLA rather than a fresh appeal.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s directions were balanced and the Appellant should seek enforcement of the existing order via Section 35(3) of the PMLA.

Liberty was granted to the Appellant to pursue appropriate legal remedies for the execution of the Tribunal's directions.