S G Shah, J. - (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: -
"54. The same test is applicable in the facts of the instant case. By the impugned order dated 18.7.2014, the Special Court for PMLA mechanically took cognizance of the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of PMLA qua each of the accused petitioner, without even prima facie material showing existence of any mens rea or culpable knowledge with all or any of them, of the subject Scheduled Offence investigated separately by Crime Branch, Surat in FIR Nos. I16/2014 dated 11.04.2014 and I17/2014 dated 13.4.2014, or of any proceeds of crime emanating from the said scheduled offences. Neither there is any tangible evidence, nor even any circumstantial material to impute culpable knowledge on the petitioners and to even prima facie conclude that they were either aware of the commission of the Schedule Offence or the generation of the alleged proceeds of crime by or out of such Schedule Offence. As per the material adduced, it cannot be even prima facie held that the petitioners had any reason to even have any reasonable doubt regarding commission of alleged schedule offence and generation of any proceeds of crime in relation thereto. The same is also fortified by the fact that none of the petitioners were made an accused in the scheduled offence. Even though the accused petitioners received in their bank accounts certain amounts at the instance of or from their close relative Shri Afroz Hasanfatta, the statements if taken on their face value, do not satisfy even on prima facie basis the prerequisite for trying any person on allegation of money laundering i.e. mens rea or culpable knowledge of the Scheduled Offence and Proceeds of Crime derived therefrom, and projection of such proceeds of crime as untainted. Even on prima facie basis no offence is made out against any of the accused petitioners. Therefore, I find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the accused Petitioners and I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned Order was passed mechanically and deserves to be set aside.

55. I deem it proper to clarify that I have neither decided the correctness or otherwise of any provisional attachment or adjudication order in that regard by any authority under PMLA, nor have I decided the issue as to whether alleged proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 16, 31, 19, 941/received by Shri Afroz Hasanfatta directly or indirectly is involved in money laundering. These issues are subject matter of different proceedings and trial. The issues decided in the instant petition is limited to the legality or otherwise of the impugned Order dated 18.7.2014 taking cognizance and issuing process by way of summons qua each of the petitioners herein.

56. The instant Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned Order dated 18.7.2014 is set aside qua each of the petitioners with consequential reliefs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled."