JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section19 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short ‘the BUDS Act’ hereinafter), challenging order in Crl.M.P.No.1995/2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3234/2023 in S.C.No.1379/2024 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, dated 23.03.2026. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records. 3. In this matter, initially, an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1995/2025 in S.C.No.1379/2024, dated 14.08.2025 has been challenged before this Court in Crl.A.No.2025/2025 and as per judgment dated 11.02.2026, this Court set aside the order after considering all the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant now argued this appeal also, and in paragraph Nos.3 to 20 of the above judgment, this Court discussed everything in minute niceties. Thereafter, the order was set aside on finding one point in favour of the appellant that the order impugned earlier was passed without providing an opportunity to the appellant therein who is the appellant herein also to file objection and to consider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to file objection, while negating all other contentions. The said finding not challenged at all. Thereafter, the learned Designated Judge given notice to the respondent, his objection got filed and again, on hearing both sides, the impugned order has been rendered which reads as under: “In the result, petition is allowed. The competent authority is directed to take possession of the assets mentioned in CMP No.3234/23 within one month from the date of receipt of this order and to take further steps to sell the property at the earliest and inform the court regarding the steps taken to sell the property as early as possible. The liability in the present case as contented by the respondent is Rs.5,00,000/- plus interest. The respondent had already deposited Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). If the respondent deposits an amount of Rs.5,00,000/, the respondent is entitled to apply the court for vacating the order in the present case.” 4. The liability in the present case as contented by the respondent is Rs.5,00,000/- plus interest. The respondent had already deposited Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). If the respondent deposits an amount of Rs.5,00,000/, the respondent is entitled to apply the court for vacating the order in the present case.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised in the earlier appeal and according to him, on reading Section 18(c) of the BUDS Act, the power of the court to take possession of the property is available only if the property to be attached as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the BUDS Act and that too, after confirmation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, there is no attachment as provided under and 15 of the BUDS Act and the Designated Court cannot proceed against the property without an attachment and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be reversed. 5. The other side strongly opposed this contention. 6. In fact, the issue that has been considered in the earlier appeal could not be re-agitated by the appellant without challenging the earlier judgment in Crl.A.No.2025/2025, dated 11.02.2026. The questions to be considered in this appeal are (i) whether the order suffers from any illegality or the Designated Court do not have the power under Section 18(c) of the BUDS Act to pass such an order to take possession without an attachment of the property and its confirmation as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the BUDS Act? and (ii) is it mandatory to have an order of attachment as provided under and 15 of the BUDS Act to invoke Section 18(c) of the BUDS Act by the Designated Court? 7. On a plain reading of Section 18(c) of the BUDS Act would indicate that the Designated Court shall have the power to direct the Competent Authority to take possession of any assets belonging to or in the control of the deposit taker and to sell, transfer or realise the attached assets, either by public auction or by private sale, as it deems fit depending upon the nature of the assets, and credit the sale proceeds thereof to its bank account. Thus, Section 18(c) of the BUDS Act gives power to the Designated Court to direct the Competent Authority to take possession of any assets belonging to or in the control of the deposit taker and to sell or transfer the same is independent and the said power is totally independent, for which, an attachment or its confirmation as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the BUDS Act is not at all mandatory. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 18(c) of the BUDS Act does not authorise the Designated Court to direct taking possession of a property without an order of attachment, is found to be unsustainable and, in view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be justified and confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is found to be meritless and the same is dismissed, confirming the order impugned.