The PMLA Case : Explanation

PMLA Case : Explanation

Order dt. 19 March 2024 passed by SC. There is no stay there by SC. 

Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of UP [2012] GCtR 9877 (SC) : page 46 violated. 6 months time was fixed.

HCBA v. state of UP [2024] GCtR 2344 (SC) paras 34 and 35 violated. Page 16 gives power to HC to vacate stay (suppression or misrepresentation of material facts ; material change in circumstances ; These grounds are not exhaustive).

Hansraj Sachdeva v. Vijay Dharmsuri Samadhi Mandhir [2023] GCtR 1099 (Gwalior, MP) has held that merely because case is referred to larger Bench stay cannot be granted.

Collector of Customs v. Krishna Sales (P) Ltd [1993] GCtR 9599 (SC) has held that "mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the order appealed against." 

Nathi Ram v. Charan Singh [2013] GCtR 9599 (P&H) has held clearly that "A lis cannot be adjourned sine die merely because an issue of law is pending adjudication in High Court or Supreme Court. If cases are adjourned sine die on this ground, then large number of cases would get adjourned sine die and proceedings would get stalled without any justification. A case can be decided on the basis of law, as it exists on the date of decision or on the date of suit, whatever may be appropriate, but a lis cannot be adjourned sine die on the ground that some issue of law is pending adjudication in a higher Court." 

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] GCtR 1828 (SC) has already decided the issue where they did not examined validity of PMLA, 2002. "Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the 2002 Act stands rejected. The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. No merit in the challenge to Section 44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional.. The provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002 Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime. Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory".

Submission made was regarding pendency of issues in Apex Court. 

What is case about : a petition under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing. Interim Orders were there by HC. Stay was granted on 24 Jan 2019 by HC. Issue is about crime before 2009 when amendment took place. On 25 Jan 2024, it was noted by HC that matter be adjourned sine die but liberty to inform Registry if any development take place. 

What is SC case about : it's a case of 2011. An Andhra HC judgment was under challenge.