Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Ranjan Sharma, J
Gian Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.
The petitioner, in sum and substance in the present petition, challenges his arrest order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-32), whereby. the Assistant Director while exercising the powers under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) has arrested him at 8:21 p.m. at New Delhi and supplied him the grounds of arrest by recording “reasons to believe”, which was duly served upon him and informed to one Mr. Sanjay Sharma.
2. The consequential order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-38) was passed by the Learned Special Judge, Enforcement Directorate/(Corruption Prevention), CBI Court No.2, Ghaziabad, whereby the remand application was allowed for 03 days to the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter to be referred as “ED”) from 19.11.2024 to 22.11.2024, while also dealing with the application for bail, which was impliedly rejected.
3. Similarly, challenge is also raised to the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-41), passed by the Special Judge, wherein the petitioner was sent to judicial custody, while rejecting the argument as such, that the jurisdiction of this Court had been encroached upon.
4. As per the pra
Jurisdiction for money laundering cases follows the location of predicate offences; the arrest and remand were valid under the PMLA.
(1) Trial of scheduled offence should take place in Special Court which has taken cognizance of offence of money-laundering.(2) Issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition.
The court ruled that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful due to insufficient evidence linking him to illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Ac....
The necessity of providing documented 'reasons to believe' at the time of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA is a statutory requirement that must be adhered to for the arrest to be lawful.
Section 3 reads as offence of money-laundering.
The offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which has nothing ....
Judicial review of PMLA arrests limited to procedural compliance; 'reasons to believe' under s.19 valid on prima facie material like seized assets, statements; no need for naming in predicate FIRs; o....
The trial for scheduled offences and money laundering offences must occur in a Special Court as outlined in Section 44(1) of PMLA, reflecting legislative intent for concurrent trials.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
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
