Every PMLA offence has two dimensions - predicate offence and laundering. Money laundering is a separate offence independent from the predicate/scheduled offence, Mehta.
Many of the official records that the ED receives are from other countries as India is apart of a global statutory network against money laundering, Mehta
Statute states that there must be a reason to believe based on matetial in possession and such reasons to be recorded by the adjudicating authority in cases of money laundering, Mehta
The threshold before arresting is much higher as under PMLA than under IPC. Only specified officers can make the arrest after reasons are recorded in writing. All ingredients of Article 20 are covered, Mehta
-Only the Director authorised can arrest
-based on reasons to believe an offence is committed
-reasons to be recorded in writing
-based on material in possession
-evidence submitted to adjudicating authority in sealed cover
The evidence should be kept with an independent body and the evidence can be supplied to the accused only after chargesheet is filed, Mehta
The material in possession is sacrosanct and I cannot use it arbitrarily till chargesheet is filed and cannot serve to the other side till then according to the statue, Mehta
It's not done for "humiliation, humiliation, humiliation" as Mr Singhvi said yesterday but only for prevention, prevention, prevention with capital P, Mehta
Overseas banks have given some specific inputs regarding properties, companies etc. We have issued letters rogatory (LR), we have got some, we are awaiting some, Mehta
I request the court to grant my material an exclusion from the accused at this stage of investigation. Evidence copy cannot be shared with the accused before filing chargesheet, Mehta
Justice Banumathi reminds Mehta that case made on P Chidambaram's behalf was inky that the Court should not be presented with evidence that has not been used to confront the accused.
Mehta hands over a substantially large compilation of case laws to the Court and is reading out precedents to support his argument against disclosure of evidence to the accused ahead of filing of a chargesheet.
SG Tushar Mehta also cites the Supreme Court's judgment in the #BhimaKoregaon case on a petition filed by Romila Thapar and Ors. Mehta points out that in that case too, the case diary was places before the Court.
Supreme Court hears bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah booked under the UAPA for conspiring to secede Jammu & Kashmir from India.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Sr. Adv. Colin Gonsalves (for Shah): the chargesheet mentioned a large number of accused persons.
Court: what is the primary allegation?
Gonsalves: yes. I will. I am not there in the main chargesheet. Not in the first supplementary chargesheet. I was added in the second supplementary chargesheet.
Court: you were booked for provocative speeches etc?
Gonsalves: yes and terror funding. The last speech I gave was in 1993. The story of terror funding was one one Mr. Wani was carrying money amounting to 75 lakhs meant for me. Wani was acquitted in the ED matter. I was given bail in the ED matter.
Court: since when are you in custody?
Gonsalves: total custody in and out all together is 40 years. In this last FIRs 6.5 years. The period of custody that I have undergone in all the FIRs is 40 years including detentions.
Supreme Court hears plea by Niranjan Das, an accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case in which FIRs were registered in Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
Das seeks transfer of trial in UP FIR to Chhattisgarh liquor scam. Bench led by CJI Surya Kant hears matter.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appears for Das.
CJI Surya Kant: You are saying the allegations in the two states are similar. But Coordinate bench says that they are state specific
Court notes that in UP FIR, there are co-accused from UP also. If trial is transferred in Das’ case, co-accused in UP also affected.
CJI: What about a (co-accused who is) permanent resident of Noida (if trial is transferrer to Raipur, Chhattisgarh)?
Supreme Court to resume hearing its suo motu case on stray dogs today.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
#Straydogs #SupremeCourt
On the last hearing, the Court was cautioned to take expert advice in the case so that it doesn’t end up like the recent Aravalli ruling which had to be stayed after concerns were raised about the absence of domain experts in the committee appointed by the Court.
Supreme Court to deliver judgment in a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act("PC Act"), which was introduced through an amendment in 2018 #SupremeCourt
Justice KV Viswanathan: Judgment in Vineet Narain has stated that the Executive on its own cannot foreclose investigation against its own. We have discussed Subhramniam Swamy on Section 6a validity.
Justice KV Viswanathan: We have highlighted the qualitative difference between erstwhile 6a and present 17a.
Supreme Court resumes hearing plea against detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the NSA.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (for Wangchuk): I am told by the Solicitor’s office that he will not be able to address the Court till the 26th. At least we must know.
Counsel: there’s a wedding in his family between the 19th and 23rd.
Court: we will let Mr. Sibal complete today. And we will have it again tomorrow. This is a habeas corpus petition. We will have it between 2:45-3:00pm.
Supreme Court to resume hearing its suo motu case on stray dogs today, marking the third consecutive day of proceedings in the matter.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
#Straydogs #SupremeCourt
Yesterday, the court had asked counsel opposing the removal of stray dogs from institutional areas to come prepared on a ToI article titled “On The Roof Of The World, Feral Dogs Hunt Down Ladakh’s Rare Species”.