Back
RAMESH SINHA, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Anil Tuteja S/o Late H. L. Tuteja – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary Department of Revenue, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, C.J.
1. Since common and inter-related facts and issues are involved in this batch of petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners, in Cr. M.P. No. 721/2024 have prayed for the following reliefs:
2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Letter dated 11.07.2023 sent by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 4 in complete violation of the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all consequential actions/ proceedings emanating therefrom.
3. To kindly call for the entire records of the preliminary inquiry conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur in relation to the Impugned FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur and the details and records relating to the grant of sanction u/s 17A Prevention of Corruption Act granted by the appropriat
The court affirmed the validity of FIRs registered by different agencies for distinct offences, emphasizing the necessity of ongoing investigations into serious allegations of corruption and money la....
The court affirmed that even if a prosecution complaint is quashed, information under Section 66(2) of the PML Act can justify the lodging of an FIR, as it discloses cognizable offences.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
The presence of a scheduled offence legitimizes the existence of an ECIR and allows the department to continue the investigation. However, the settlement or quashing of scheduled offences in FIRs pro....
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
A predicate offence must exist for PMLA investigations to proceed; if proceedings are stayed, then related investigations, including ECIR and NBWs, must also desist.
Anticipatory bail under the PMLA requires clear evidence that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The court upheld the validity of the ECIR independent of the FIRs, affirming that non-bailable warrants were justified due to the petitioners' non-cooperation in the investigation.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
