AMIT BORKAR
Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Assistant Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
The present bail application involves a substantial question of law, which, though uncommon in the context of bail proceedings, assumes considerable importance for the proper adjudication of the present case. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the references made in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’), to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), stand vitiated or rendered ineffective by virtue of the repeal of those enactments through the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). A further question that necessarily follows is whether such references in the PMLA are now to be construed as referring to the corresponding provisions under the new legislative regime embodied in the BNS and BNSS.
2. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS and Section 45 of the PMLA, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with ECIR/MBZO-II/20/2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office-II. The said ECIR corresponds to Special Case (PMLA) No.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr.
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. vs. UOI and Ors.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs. State of Punjab
Collector of Customs, Madras vs. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.