Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.38 seconds)
Amit Kumar Agarwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 19 March, 2025 cites

Pankaj Bansal vs Union Of India And Others on 26 July, 2023

The arrest of the said appellant was on 03.10.2023 but the judgment rendered in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) has been uploaded on 04.10.2023 and as such the ground was taken not to give any aid of judgment passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) even though the written communication regarding the ground of arrest of the appellant has not been furnished but - 56 - W.P.(Cr.) No. 793 of 2024 the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order that merely because the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) has been uploaded on 04.10.2023 but the said Prabir Purkayastha was arrested on 04.10.2023 while the judgment passed in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) was delivered on 03.10.2023 and as such the case of Prabir Purkayastha has come within the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) and since the written communication was not there, hence, he was directed to be released on bail. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - R Bahri - Full Document

V. Senthil Balaji vs The State Represented By Deputy ... on 7 August, 2023

100. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 has again considered the issue of Section 19(1) of the Act 2002. The factual aspect of the case is like that between 2011 and 2016, the appellant was holding the post of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. Broadly, the allegation against the appellant is that while discharging his duties as a Minister, in connivance with his personal assistant and his brother, he collected large amounts by promising job opportunities to several persons in various positions in the Transport Department. This led to the registering of three First Information Reports against the appellant and others. The said First Information Reports are FIR no. 441 of 2015 dated 29th October 2015 (CC Nos. 22 and 24 of 2021), FIR No. 298 of 2017 registered on 9th September 2017 (CC No. 19 of 2020) and FIR no. 344 dated 13th August 2018 (CC No. 25 of 2020).
Supreme Court of India Cites 116 - Cited by 20 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Prabir Purkayastha vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 October, 2023

16. Recently, in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court reiterated the aforesaid principles expounded in Pankaj Bansal (supra). The said principles were applied to the pari materia provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Court explained that Section 19(1) of the PML Act is meant to serve a higher purpose, and also to enforce the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The right to life and personal liberty is sacrosanct, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and protected by Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Bansal vs Union Of India on 3 October, 2023

30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of the learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant-accused is noted - 57 - W.P.(Cr.) No. 793 of 2024 to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - P V Kumar - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Kejriwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 6 December, 2019

99. Again, in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) the view has been taken for communication of reason of arrest and it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the written ―grounds of arrest‖, though a must, does not in itself satisfy the compliance requirement. The authorized officer's genuine belief and reasoning based on the evidence that establishes the arrestee's guilt is also the legal necessity. As the ―reasons to believe‖ are accorded by the authorised officer, the onus to establish satisfaction of the said condition will be on the DoE and not on the arrestee.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A B Singh - Full Document

Petitioner No. 6 For Placing On Record ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 2020

(a) to read down and/or read into, consider, determine and expound the scope and ambit of Section 19 and Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia, in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, reported in AIR 1951 SC 157, Harkishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 and Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury vs Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 929 and declare that :-
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 291 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Roop Kumar vs Mohan Thedani on 2 April, 2003

77. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgments are with respect to the issue of arrest and at that time the requirement as stipulated under Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002 has been held to be mandatorily complied with. - 39 - W.P.(Cr.) No. 793 of 2024 But since the issue of arrest has not been intended to be challenged by confining the prayer only with respect to the order of remand said to be passed as per the petitioner on 09.06.2023, hence, there is no requirement of delving upon the said judgment with respect to its applicability in view of subsistence of order dated 04.10.2024.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 273 - A Pasayat - Full Document

The State Of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya on 25 January, 1951

(a) to read down and/or read into, consider, determine and expound the scope and ambit of Section 19 and Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia, in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, reported in AIR 1951 SC 157, Harkishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 and Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury vs Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 929 and declare that :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 283 - H J Kania - Full Document
1   2 Next