Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.36 seconds)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:
Section 3 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022
The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking
into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which is a decision
rendered by a three Judge Bench, after formulating the
questions of law, has referred the matter for consideration by
a larger Bench. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs
are being quoted as under:
Section 4 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
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).