Judgment:
ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioners were issued notices dated 15-9-2009 by the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') third respondent herein, directing them to appear on 5-11-2009. This was in relation to the proceedings that came to be initiated on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement/fourth respondent herein. The basis is the proceedings instituted against Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju and others of M/s. Satyam Computers & Services Limited.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the notices are not clear as to the nature of the allegations made against them. It is alleged that though the proceedings can be instituted before the third respondent against the persons who are guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the Act or those who are in possession of proceeds of the crime, nothing is stated in this regard and they are handicapped in the matter of framing their defence.
3. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the first respondent and Sri Rajeev Awasthi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
4. The controversy in these writ petitions is in a very narrow compass. The petitioners do not challenge the jurisdiction of the third respondent, as such. Their grievance is about the lack of clarity or details as to the nature of allegations made against them. The petitioners submitted objections before the third respondent in this connection and the same were rejected through order dated 20-11-2009.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court passed interim orders on 1-12-2009 in these writ petitions directing that the petitioners shall appear before the third respondent and seek necessary information as to whether they are being proceeded against, as those who committed offence under Section 3 of the Act, or as those who are in possession of proceeds of the crime. It is represented across the Bar that the third respondent has since informed the petitioners vide communication dated 3-12-2009 that they are being proceeded as those who committed offence under Section 3 of the Act. Copy of the said communication is placed before this Court and is made available to the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners. With this, the little ambiguity that existed in the matter, stands cleared. Now that the nature of the allegations against the petitioners is clear, they need to be given reasonable time to enable them to frame their defence.
6. Having regard to the fact that the record is voluminous, this Court is of the view that the petitioners can be given time upto 21-12-2009.
7. Hence, these three writ petitions are disposed o f directing that the proceedings initiated before the third respondent shall stand postponed till 21-12-2009 and on that day, the petitioners shall deliver their defence and proceed with the matter as required under law. The time granted by this Court shall stand excluded for computation of the period of 150 days, under Section 5 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.