Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Image
Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Union Government develop a comprehensive policy addressing the construction of feeding rooms and childcare facilities  in public places. This move aims to ensure that nursing mothers and their children can access basic amenities in a dignified and private manner, reinforcing their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. SC Encourages Policy Formulation A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna  and Justice N Kotiswar Singh  highlighted the absence of a structured framework to address this pressing issue. The court advised the Centre to propose a policy that could then be implemented across the states, scheduling the next hearing for December 10, 2024.   The apex court emphasized that before issuing formal directions, it was crucial to understand the Centre’s perspective on implementing the petitioner’s demand for childcare and feedi...
Post a Comment

Supreme Court Directs Special PMLA Court to Withhold Judgment Until Charges Are Framed in CBI Case

Supreme Court Directs Special PMLA Court to Withhold Judgment Until Charges Are Framed in CBI Case


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India directed a Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to refrain from passing a final judgment in a money laundering case until charges are framed in a related Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) offence. This decision emphasizes the importance of coordination between parallel proceedings under the PMLA and the CBI’s investigation into predicate offences.


The Bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi** and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered the ruling on Tuesday, stating that although the PMLA trial may continue in accordance with the law, the Special Court must withhold its judgment until the charges are framed in the CBI’s predicate offence case.


Background of the Case


The case in question involves a Hong Kong-based company director**, implicated in a large-scale financial fraud involving Punjab National Bank, Chennai. In 2017, the CBI’s Chennai branch registered an FIR against 19 Indian entities and unnamed public officials. The allegations included the fraudulent opening of multiple bank accounts and the remittance of ₹450 Crores to entities based in Hong Kong and Dubai. Despite these transactions, no corresponding goods were exported to India.


Following this, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Chennai registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) related to the same transactions under the PMLA. The petitioner, represented by advocates Gaurav Gupta and Deepanshu Choithani, contested the proceedings against him.


Petitioner's Arguments


The petitioner argued that, although the CBI FIR was filed in 2017, no chargesheet has been submitted in the case thus far. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed he was neither named in the CBI FIR nor in the ED’s ECIR but was later prosecuted and had charges framed against him in the PMLA Special Court.


One of the petitioner’s primary concerns was that the PMLA trial might conclude soon, as there are only five witnesses in the case. However, the CBI investigation could continue for an indefinite period, creating an unusual legal situation where the petitioner could be convicted under PMLA while potentially never being charged or tried under the CBI for the predicate offence.


Legal Implications and Anomalies


The petitioner highlighted a possible legal anomaly in the case. The PMLA case may conclude with a conviction based on charges that are unrelated to the predicate offence, which is still under investigation by the CBI. If the CBI does not eventually file charges or if the petitioner is not charged in the CBI case, it would lead to a situation where the petitioner faces a criminal conviction without being formally charged for the underlying offence that gave rise to the PMLA case.


This, according to the petitioner, creates a scenario where the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA may be misapplied. Section 24 shifts the burden of proof to the accused in PMLA cases, but the petitioner argued that this provision should only apply after formal charges have been filed by a competent court in a predicate offence.


Supreme Court’s Directive


The Supreme Court, acknowledging the potential legal inconsistency, issued its directive to the PMLA Special Court in Chennai, ensuring that no final judgment is passed until the CBI frames charges in the predicate offence. This decision balances the need for timely proceedings under the PMLA with the requirement of addressing any predicate offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.


Relevance of FEMA and PMLA


The petitioner further argued that the allegations in the CBI FIR, which involve the remittance of foreign exchange, do not necessarily prove that the funds were proceeds of crime. He contended that, at best, the case could involve a violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), which is a civil offence and not included as a scheduled offence under the PMLA.


As a result, the petitioner challenged the applicability of the PMLA in this case, stating that unless the CBI can establish that the funds were proceeds of crime generated from criminal activity, the PMLA charges should not apply.


Conclusion


The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that legal procedures in cases involving both PMLA and CBI investigations are coordinated effectively. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining procedural fairness and preventing *inconsistent legal outcomes between money laundering cases and their related predicate offences. 


With the next steps contingent on the framing of charges by the CBI, the outcome of this case will serve as a key precedent in ensuring that PMLA trials are aligned with the broader investigation of predicate crimes.


This ruling will also shed light on how the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA is applied in cases where the CBI investigation is incomplete. The case will likely draw attention to the interplay between PMLA and FEMA violations and whether certain foreign exchange violations should fall within the purview of the PMLA.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Image
Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...
Read more

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Image
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager  Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores  The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Varun Vashista , a former bank manager accused of embezzling over ₹13 crores from a customer’s account while working at ICICI Bank's Vikas Puri branch. The bail was approved by Justice Amit Mahajan on November 12, 2024, after considering the evidence and facts of the case.   Details of the Case The allegations against Vashista stem from his role as a branch manager. The complainant and her husband had entrusted him with managing their investments, amounting to ₹13.5 crores, between 2019 and 2023.   The complainant discovered in January 2024 that nearly ₹12 crores had been **siphoned off** from her account. Key allegations include:   - Creation of Fake Fixed Deposits: The accused reportedly created fraudulent fixed deposit accounts in the complainant’s name.   - Misappropriation of Funds: Funds were tr...
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the...
Read more