Back
ANOOP CHITKARA
Suraj Seth – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Directorate Enforcement Jalandhar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
| Complaint No. | Dated | Pending in Court | Sections |
| ECIR/03/JLZO /2017 | ------ | Special Court, CBI at SAS Nagar Mohali, | 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as defined u/s 3 R/w Section 70 and punishable u/s 4 of the PMLA Act 2002. |
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 31 of the bail application, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The Directorate of Enforcement's case, in nutshell is that the accused Vikram Seth operated a few bogus entities in his name and also in the name of the family members, as mentioned in the complaint, which reads as follows: -
'(2). Brief summary of cause of action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The complainant submits that the condition precedent to investigate the offence of Money Laundering by the Complainant/ Directorate of Enforcement is either an FIR or a Police Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. or a complaint, in respect of sc
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
