Back
AMIT SHARMA
Directorate of Enforcement – Appellant
Versus
Dev Inder Bhalla – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J.
1. The present petition under Section 47 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (`PMLA') read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks the following prayers:
"a. to call for the records, examine the same for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality and propriety and set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2023; and/or
b. to remand the case to the trial court for further consideration on the
c. to cancel the order for interim bail and send the accused respondent to Judicial custody till remand application is reconsidered by trial court.
d. to pass any such other or further order(s) as mat do complete justice on the facts and circumstances of the case."
Background
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are as under:
i. ECIR/09/DLZO/2016 was initiated by the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the `department') against 11 accused persons including the present respondent, Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla who was stated to be Director of M/s Interdev Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., Singapore.
ii. It is the case of the department th
The judgment established that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant should follow proper procedure and judicial guidelines, including the recording of satisfaction by the court.
The court ruled that consent under Section 45 of the Cr.P.C. was not required for the petitioner's arrest, affirming the jurisdiction of the Special Judge and the validity of remand orders.
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
The filing of a complaint within the stipulated time precludes the entitlement to default bail, regardless of remand order irregularities, which must comply with statutory requirements.
Mandatory compliance with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is essential; failure to comply renders arrest and subsequent proceedings illegal.
The court affirmed that under the PML Act, the burden of proof lies with the accused, and economic offences necessitate a stringent approach in judicial proceedings.
(1) Writ of Habeas Corpus – When there is a non-compliance of mandatory provisions along with a total non-application of mind, there may be a case for entertaining a writ of Habeas Corpus and that to....
The court established that non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA regarding informing the accused of the grounds for arrest and the court's duty to record reasons fo....
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
