Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA
Satinder Singh Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. details on investigations and allegations against the petitioner. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. summary of petitions filed by the petitioner. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 4. arguments concerning the jurisdictional flaws in the ecir. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. contentions regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrants. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. submissions regarding illegal detention and its implications. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 7. statements regarding the lack of proceeds of crime. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 8. arguments supporting the ed's investigation maintainability. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 9. ed's defense against the petitioner's claims. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 10. ed's validation for issuing nbws. (Para 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 11. discussion on compliance and procedures with references to broader principles. (Para 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 12. analysis of the parameters governing issuance of nbws. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 13. legal reasoning concerning the natu |
A predicate offence must exist for PMLA investigations to proceed; if proceedings are stayed, then related investigations, including ECIR and NBWs, must also desist.
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
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 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.
FIR and ECIR become two different documents and both tend to take shape on its own, independent of each other.
A quashed FIR does not automatically invalidate an ECIR; the ECIR is independent and requires substantive grounds for quashing based on the merits of the predicate offence under PMLA.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offences linked to them are closed by the court, indicating the non-existence of 'proceeds of crime'.
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.
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
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
