Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summons issued to the respondent merely on the premise that the respondent was discharged in the predicate offence. The permissibility of continuing proceedings under the PMLA, despite the discharge in the predicate offence. Held, the issuance of summons cannot be quashed solely because the respondent has been discharged in the predicate offence. The question of whether the respondent can be arrayed as an accused in the PMLA proceedings is to be addressed at a subsequent stage. The respondent retains the right to challenge his potential arraignment as an accused under the PMLA by raising all relevant contentions, including reliance on the quashing of the predicate offence. The Court clarified that the present matter pertains only to the issuance of summons and does not preclude the respondent from raising objections during later stages of the proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allowed the appellant to proceed pursuant to the summons. The respondent, however, was directed not to be arrested, provided he continues to cooperate with the investigation. Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Vilelie Khamo, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1045Whether the observations made by the Special Court regarding the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its Public Prosecutors require clarification - Held, Public Prosecutors must act fairly and in accordance with binding precedents but may oppose bail petitions if the ED is not at fault for trial delays. The ED or its Director cannot dictate the conduct of Public Prosecutors beyond providing case-specific facts. The Special Court's observations (Paragraph 7.20 of its order) were clarified to ensure Public Prosecutors retain independence in their duties as officers of the court. Masih Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 992Propriety of granting bail under PMLA - Consideration of prolonged pre-trial detention and its impact on personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Assessment of the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses - The appellant, a Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and former State Education Minister, was implicated in a recruitment scam involving corruption and money laundering. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated investigations based on allegations of corrupt practices in the recruitment of teachers and staff, leading to the arrest of the appellant. Substantial cash and incriminating documents were recovered from the appellant's associate's premises. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the appellant's prolonged incarceration and health issues, balanced these considerations against the gravity of the allegations and the risk of evidence tampering. The Court directed that the trial court expedite proceedings, particularly the examination of key witnesses. The appellant be released on bail subject to conditions ensuring cooperation and non-interference with the trial process. The appellant shall not hold any public office during the pendency of the trial. This judgment emphasizes the principle of personal liberty under Article 21, while also underscoring the importance of preventing interference in judicial processes in cases involving serious allegations of corruption and money laundering. Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 987Section 65 makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to all proceedings under the PMLA, provided the same are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the PMLA. The words 'All other proceedings' include a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA. Held, considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1). Therefore, the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 940Section 71 - Overriding Effect - While Section 71 of the PMLA provides overriding authority, it does not negate the procedural requirements of prior sanction for prosecution under CrPC when acts are integrally connected to official duties. Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 940Undertrial Prisoners - The Court applied the provisions of Section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in conjunction with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the detention of undertrial prisoners. The Court observed that the appellant had not been convicted for any offense in the past and had undergone detention for a period exceeding one-third of the maximum imprisonment for the alleged offense under the Customs Act, 1862. The Court held that the first proviso to Section 479(1) of the BNSS...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags