Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.57 seconds)
Mohd Ilyas vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 4 December, 2024 cites

Manish Sisodia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 July, 2023

Further, Manish Sisodia [Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813] , that keeping persons behind the bars for unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty ought not to be permitted to become the punishment without trial."
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019

In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that a scheduled/predicate offence is a sine qua non for the offence of money-laundering which would generate the money which is being laundered. At its highest, this allegation links the petitioner to generation of „proceeds of crime‟ which is not a crime under the PMLA.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 2721 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Manish Sisodia vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 30 October, 2023

42. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners have generated proceeds of crime, even then, prima facie, the petitioners do not have dominion and control over the said alleged proceeds of crime. Admitted case of the ED is that the petitioners collected the Digitally Signed Page 20 of 31 By:MAYANK Signing Date:04.12.2024 12:14:28 funds and deposited the same with the accountant or PFI‟s account. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia (I) (supra) has dealt with the same and observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2015

In Mohan Lal (supra), the expression „possession‟, it is held, consists of two elements. First, it refers to corpus of physical control and second it refers to the animus or intent which has reference to exercise of self-control. In the context of narcotics laws, a person is said to possess control over the substance when he knows the substance is immediately accessible and exercises dominion or control over the substance. The power and dominion over the substance is, therefore, fundamental. The stand of the DoE as to the constructive possession, will be satisfied only if the dominion and control criteria is satisfied. If the proceeds of crime are in dominion and control of a third person, and not in the dominion and control of the person charged under Section 3, the accused is not in possession of the proceeds of the crime. It would be a different matter, when an accused, though not in possession, is charged for use, concealment or acquisition of the proceeds of the crime, or projects or claims the proceeds of crime as untainted property. The involvement of an accused may be direct or indirect. Prima facie, there is lack of clarity, as specific allegation on the involvement of the appellant - Manish Sisodia, direct or indirect, in the transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 (rupees forty five crores only) to AAP for the Goa elections is missing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 165 - D Misra - Full Document

Dr. Prem Prakash Verma vs Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. on 8 August, 2023

19. Learned counsel further states that the primary evidence against the petitioner is his own statements recorded under section 50 of PMLA which do not implicate the petitioner. The said statements have weak probative value. His own statement cannot be the starting point of Digitally Signed Page 10 of 31 By:MAYANK Signing Date:04.12.2024 12:14:28 evidence. Confessions require corroborative material to verify the contents and mere admissibility does not mean proof of facts. The statements of the petitioner are imported from different ECIR where the petitioner is not an accused. Reliance is placed on Prem Prakash (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate Orf Enforcement on 17 April, 2023

38. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has very categorically laid down the distinction with respect to „proceeds of crime‟. The above paras hold that any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly „as a result of criminal activity‟ which is a scheduled offence under the PMLA is proceeds of crime. In other words, any property obtained following the commission of the scheduled offence or from the proceeds of the scheduled offence will be the proceeds of crime. Further, it is also appropriate to refer to the judgment of Pavana Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 wherein it was observed that for proceeds of crime, the existence of the scheduled offence is a condition precedent. To invoke section 3 of PMLA, it is not necessary that the accused persons must have been shown as accused in the scheduled offences and the proceeds of crime must be from the scheduled offence. Relevant paras are extracted below:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2023

Further, Manish Sisodia [Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813] , that keeping persons behind the bars for unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty ought not to be permitted to become the punishment without trial."
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - M S Karnik - Full Document
1