Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.47 seconds)Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 19 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs The Collector, District Raigad & Ors on 2 March, 2012
‘Where power is conferred to achieve a purpose, it has been
repeatedly reiterated that the power must be exercised reasonably and in
good faith to effectuate the purpose. And in this context “in good faith”
means “for legitimate reasons”. Where power is exercised for extraneous
or irrelevant considerations or reasons, it is unquestionably a colourable
exercise of power or fraud on power and the exercise of power is vitiated.’
Again, in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. Collector6, it was held thus:
Devinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab Through Cbi on 25 April, 2016
24. Further, when the second ECIR was recorded on 13.06.2023 ‘after
preliminary investigations’, as stated in the ED’s replies, it is not clear as to
22
when the ED’s Investigating Officer had the time to properly inquire into the
matter so as to form a clear opinion about the appellants’ involvement in an
offence under the Act of 2002, warranting their arrest within 24 hours. This is a
sine qua non in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. Needless to state,
authorities must act within the four corners of the statute, as pointed out by
this Court in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab 7, and a statutory authority is
bound by the procedure laid down in the statute and must act within the four
corners thereof.
Dr. Shriram Omprakash Fafat And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra , Through ... on 6 October, 2017
In
7
(2008) 1 SCC 728
23
Santosh S/o Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharashtra 8, this Court noted
that custodial interrogation is not for the purpose of ‘confession' as the right
against self-incrimination is provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It was
held that merely because an accused did not confess, it cannot be said that
he was not co-operating with the investigation. Similarly, the absence of either
or both of the appellants during the search operations, when their presence
was not insisted upon, cannot be held against them.
Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs Uoi & Ors. on 1 December, 2017
35. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the
constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of
informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be
necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is
furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.
The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) and
the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra), which
hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the
admitted position is that the ED’s Investigating Officer merely read out or
permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that,
which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not
found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of
the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no hesitation in
holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1)
of the Act of 2002. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of
the ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR
31
immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR,
does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In
effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the
custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained.