Dangare Sane Associates

20/08/2022

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar today upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The bench, also consisting of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar has however held that the challenge to the passage of amendments to the act in 2019, as money bill be considered by a larger bench.

Over 200 petitions were filed challenging the provisions of the Act. It was argued before the court that the powers of Enforcement Directorate to arrest, force confessions, and seize property were unbridled.

The court has upheld the constitutional validity of —

Section 3 which provides for definition of money laundering;

Section 5 which pertains to attachment of property;

Section 8(4) which provides powers to the authority to take possession of attached property;

Section 17 which provides for search and seizure and Section 45 which provides for offences being cognizable and non-bailable

The bench has further held that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report under PMLA proceedings is not mandatory since ECIR is an internal document and cannot be equated to FIRs.

The apex court, was called to decide upon the following questions

1. Whether the offence under PMLA is cognizable or non-cognizable offence, particularly in view of the explanation inserted in 2019?

2. Whether the procedure contemplated under all provisions of Chapter 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is required to be followed while commencing and continuing investigation under the prevention of money laundering act, 2002?

3. Whether the twin conditions for grant of bail as provided for in section 45 of the PMLA as it stands amended is unconstitutional? Whether the amendment takes away the basis of the judgment in 2018 and revives the twin conditions for the grant of bail?

4. In case it is held that the twin conditions stand revived, whether the judgment in 2018 holding that the twin conditions cannot apply to a

03/08/2022

24/04/2022

Human animal conflict........ For the betterment of our future generation it's important we save the various species of wild life for they are important chain of the ecosystem......

11/10/2020

Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has substantially stated the same. Why do you need to reiterate the same? Sad if it has to be reiterated. The problem should be seen with a vision, wherein if the police machinery does not do so what kind of remedy do we have? Yes, we can certainly move the higher authorities and if they do not act it would be the Court which has ample powers under Section 156(3).
Take a pause here.. when the word "shall" has been used in Section 154 the police still effect it as "may". So the law is on deaf ears because the executive machinery does not work. But what is it when you go to the Courts? The word used is "may" in 156(3). If the police do not take action in spite of the word shall, the only ray of hope is Justice dispensing machinery, the Courts.
But to be very honest, can the same analogy should be used in Section 156(3)? The word may should be replaced by shall and make mandatory for the Courts to send the matter for registering the FIR if the police do not. There is practically no disadvantage because after registering an FIR the police can always opt for Section 159 if they fail to find any evidence against the accused. But make the victim run from pillar to post is really a tiresome work and in turn makes a person (victim) lose his faith in the legal system.

08/03/2020