The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XVI]

Prevention of Dangerous Activities Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986; Section 3(2) - Drastic provisions of the Act are not to be invoked at the drop of a hat. (Para 41) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 Preventive Detention Preventive detention laws are exceptional measures, not to be invoked when ordinary criminal law provides remedies. Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : AIR 2023 SC 4273 : (2023) 9 SCC 587 10 factors to be considered by courts to decide legality of preventive detention : Supreme Court explains. Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 'Preventive detention law can't be invoked at the 'drop of a hat'; some police officers curbing liberty' : Supreme Court slams Telangana Police. Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 The 3 months limit under Article 22(4)(a) applies only at the initial stage till the advisory board's report. Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 'All preventive detention laws are necessarily harsh': Supreme Court emphasises strict adherence to procedure in preventive detention cases. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529 Preventive detention law, a colonial legacy, confers arbitrary power; every procedural lapse must benefit detenue's case. Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293 : (2023) 2 SCR 793 Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Maharashtra) Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Maharashtra); Section 9 (1) - The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court who had ruled on the validity of the sale deed executed between the co-defendants with respect to the suit property, by holding the same as void in view of Section 9 (1) of the Fragmentation Act. Consequently, the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff was also held as void. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404 Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Maharashtra); Section 36A - While entertaining the contentions raised in respect of the Fragmentation Act, the Trial Court and the High Court did not take into consideration the statutory bar of jurisdiction contained under Section 36A of the Fragmentation Act, which barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act. Further, it reckoned that since the written statement of the defendant only contained a vague averment referring to the Fragmentation Act, the same could not be construed as a counter-claim capable of being treated as a plaint. Consequently, it did not enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, on the said issue. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - An offence punishable under section 120-B will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence specifically included in the schedule. (Para 27 (e)) Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 : AIR 2024 SC 117 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - It is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. (Para 15 & 27 (a) Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 : AIR 2024 SC 117 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the PMLA is not an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit from the acquittal of all the accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all the accused in the scheduled offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the order of quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence. (Paras 16 and 27(b)) Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 : AIR 2024 SC 117 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Sections 3, 45 & 71 - The Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in ...

The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XVI]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags