IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Prem Prakash son of Pramod Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Since these matters are interlinked and, as such, both are heard together and being disposed of by a common order.
2. Both of these Criminal Revision petitions have been filed under sections 438 & 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Criminal Revision No.1226 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 08.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1-cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 registered for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA, 2002) whereby and whereunder, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2205 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking discharge has been rejected.
4. Criminal Revision No. 333 of 2025 is directed against the order dated 04.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1-cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 registered for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whereby and whereunder, the charge has been framed against the petitioner.
Factual
State of Tamilnadu, by Inspector of Police in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan
Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
Palwinder Singh v. Balvinder Singh
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey
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.