Yash Tuteja vs Union of India - 2024 Supreme(SC) 340

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 340

ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Yash Tuteja – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Sidak Anand, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gharote Anurag A, AOR Mrs. Kalyani Bhide, Adv. Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mrs. Sairica Raju, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Srinivasan M Bogisam, Adv. M/S. VMZ CHAMBERS, AOR

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Taken up for final hearing as notice has already been issued on the petitions. In substance, in these Writ Petitions, the only challenge that survives is to the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”) concerning ECIR/RPZO/11/2022.

2. It is not in dispute that the alleged scheduled offences on which the complaint is based are under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Sections 120B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). It is also not in dispute that except for Section 120B of the IPC, none of the offences are scheduled offences within the meaning of clause (y) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA. This Court, in the decision in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1586 recorded its conclusions in paragraph 31, which reads thus:

“CONCLUSIONS

31. While we reject the first and second submissions canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the third submission must be upheld. Our conclusions are:

(a) It is not necessary that a pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 340

ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYANYash Tuteja – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Yash Tuteja – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent