SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back Icon Back Next Next Icon
AI icon Copy icon AI Message Bookmarks icon Share icon Up Arrow icon Down Arrow icon Zoom in icon Zoom Out icon Print Search icon Print icon Download icon Expand icon Close icon
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Sound Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3417

SUPREME COURT
Unknown, J
Union of India v. Varinder Singh Alias Raja and Another


Headnote: Read headnote

1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The High Court1 has not complied with the requirement of S.45 of the Prevention of Money - Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the PMLA”). While granting bail, the High Court has failed to comply with the requirement of Condition (ii) of S.45 of the PMLA. This Court in Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement ( 2015 (16) SCC 1 : 2016 (3) SCC (Cri) 603 ) has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 13-16, paras 26-30 & 34)
“26. The learned Solicitor General submitted that S.45 of PMLA refers only to the term “Special Court” and therefore has to be given restricted meaning. According to him, PMLA is a “Special Law” applicable to the subject of money - laundering, and deals with economic offenders and white

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top