HC: Court can't take cognisance of PMLA case without hearing accused
KOLKATA: A court cannot take cognisance of a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act without hearing the accused, as required under the BNSS, Calcutta HC on Friday held, quashing proceedings under PMLA against three accused.
Tutu Ghosh, Bipin Kumar Kedia, and Anil Kumar Jain were accused of offences under sections 3 and 4 (money laundering), read with section 70 of PMLA (offences by companies and their officials).
They approached the HC, contending the PMLA judge took cognisance of the offences in violation of the first proviso to BNSS section 223, as no opportunity of hearing was given to any of them before such cognisance was taken.
Senior counsel appearing for the accused argued that BNSS has introduced a provision requiring an opportunity of hearing for the accused prior to the taking of cognisance, and that denial of such an opportunity amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pocso, murder case convictionset aside by HC
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Wednesday set aside a judgment of February 28, 2022 by a fast-track sessions court in Pune, which convicted a sole accused and had sentenced him to death. HC justices, Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak, cited principles laid down recently by Supreme Court that emphasised imperativeness of providing a "fair opportunity" to an accused to defend himself when the charge against him attracts the death penalty. The high court directed the trial court to re-hear arguments afresh and expeditiously, but not to conduct the entire trial de novo. In 2022, a fast-track court in Pune, dealing with cases under Pocso (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, sentenced a 38-year-old labourer to death for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a two-and-a-half-year-old girl in Pune district in February 2021. The accused, through his counsel, argued that the trial was vitiated due to a lack of proper opportunity to defend himself. The high court refrained from commenting on the merits. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Quoting from a 2025 Supreme Court ruling, the high court said, "The failure of the trial court to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report has definitely led to the failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo The argument before the high court by both sides was that the Supreme Court has laid down that once a trial is thus vitiated, there is no question of confirming the sentence imposed through the operative part of the judgment and order passed by the trial court. The trial court had ordered that he be hanged to death, subject to confirmation as required by law. The high court said, "Since this is a case of capital punishment, the court has to ensure that all the opportunities must be afforded to the accused to defend himself. The accused must get one opportunity to argue all the aspects in respect of the additional evidence before the trial court itself so that he does not lose one forum. The trial court can appreciate the additional evidence in the background of the other evidence to consider the effect of the entire evidence cumulatively." On whether it should be a re-trial or if the trial court can re-hear arguments, the high court adopted the process which the apex court did in the "strikingly similar" case from MP, where it had not directed the trial court to conduct the trial de novo by wiping out the evidence already recorded, but to hear arguments afresh. HC directed the accused and his counsel to appear before the trial court on August 12 for further directions and disposed of the confirmation reference and his appeal.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
‘Child's Welfare Overrides Personal Law': Bombay High Court Grants Custody Of 9-Yr-Old To Mother
The HC prioritised the best interests of the boy over Muslim personal law, granting custody to his mother and reinforcing a child-centric interpretation of guardianship statutes In a significant judgment on July 21, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench reaffirmed the primacy of a child's welfare in custody battles, holding that personal laws cannot override the principle of best interest. The case involved a nine-year-old boy whose custody was earlier granted to his father by a family court in Nilanga, Latur, on the grounds that under Muslim personal law, custody of a male child after the age of seven lies with the father. The mother challenged this order, contending that the decision was neither in the child's emotional interest nor supported by material circumstances. Justice Shailesh P Brahme, deciding the appeal, observed that while personal laws offer general guidance on guardianship, the statutory mandate under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, requires that the welfare of the child be treated as paramount. The court held that the father's legal entitlement under Muslim personal law could not be the sole deciding factor, particularly when the child had clearly expressed his desire to continue living with his mother, with whom he had developed a strong emotional bond over the years. A significant factor in the High Court's reasoning was the personal interaction between the judge and the child, who was nearly ten years old at the time. The judge recorded that the child was intelligent, emotionally aware, and had clearly communicated his wish to remain with his mother. The boy reportedly described his father and paternal relatives as strangers, showing discomfort and unfamiliarity with them. The court emphasised that the child's preference, especially at this age, deserved considerable weight in a guardianship proceeding. Further, the court noted that the mother ran a small business and had been consistently supporting the child financially and emotionally. In contrast, the father had failed to establish a reliable income or the presence of a supportive caregiving structure at his residence. The absence of a female guardian in the father's household was also taken into account, as it could affect the child's comfort and care. Though the mother had previously not complied with certain interim orders of the family court, including failing to facilitate visitation on a few occasions, the High Court held that such lapses could not be treated as disqualifications when deciding the larger issue of custody. The court clarified that the welfare of the child must remain central, and should not be overshadowed by procedural defaults or used as punitive measures against either parent. The court also took a dim view of the manner in which the family court had conducted the proceedings. The appellant-mother, who was the primary caregiver, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case, and the decision was largely driven by a mechanical application of religious customs rather than a holistic evaluation of the child's needs. Moreover, the father was unable to produce concrete evidence of neglect or harm while the child was in the mother's custody. Referring to precedents such as Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal and Gayatri Bajaj v Jiten Bhalla, the court reiterated that custody disputes must not be settled solely on the basis of legal rights of parents under personal law but must take into account the child's mental, emotional, and developmental needs. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court's order and restored the custody of the child to the mother. It granted the father structured visitation rights, including a week during long school vacations and one day a month for supervised meetings. The court directed that all such visits be conducted in a manner that does not disturb the child's schooling, mental peace, or daily routine. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Bombay High Court child custody muslim personal law view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Ed attaches shares worth Rs 127cr in Panchkula-based Alchemist and Ojas hospitals
Chandigarh: The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Delhi Zonal Office, on Wednesday claimed to have provisionally attached shares worth Rs 127.33 crore in two immovable properties – Alchemist Hospital and Ojas Hospital – located in Panchkula under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. These properties are beneficially owned by Karan Deep Singh. The attachment forms part of an ongoing money laundering investigation involving M/s Alchemist Group, its directors, promoters, and associated entities, in relation to alleged large-scale fraud and misappropriation of public funds, the ED mentioned in a release. The ED had initiated the investigation into the case based on an FIR initially registered by the Kolkata Police and subsequently by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and ACB Lucknow under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against M/s Alchemist Township Pvt Ltd, M/s Alchemist Infra Realty Pvt Ltd, and promoter/directors of the Alchemist Group, including Kanwar Deep Singh and others. The case pertains to alleged large-scale criminal conspiracy to defraud investors by illegally raising funds through fraudulent collective investment schemes, offering unusually high returns, and/or making false promises of allotting plots, flats, and villas. Through these deceptive investment schemes, M/s Alchemist Holdings Ltd and M/s Alchemist Township India Ltd illegally collected approximately Rs 1,848 crore from unsuspecting investors and subsequently misappropriated the funds for unauthorised purposes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Dubai villas | search ads Get Deals Undo ED investigation revealed that the misappropriated funds were systematically layered through complex financial transactions involving group entities of the Alchemist Group, with the intent to conceal the illicit origin of the funds. These tainted proceeds were ultimately used for the acquisition of shares and subsequent construction of Alchemist Hospital and Ojas Hospital. The transactions were deliberately structured to project these assets as legitimate, thereby disguising the proceeds of crime. The shares of Alchemist Hospital and Ojas Hospital are held to the extent of 40.94% and 37.24%, respectively, by M/s Sorus Agritech Pvt Ltd, a company beneficially owned by Karan Deep Singh, son of Kanwar Deep Singh. Earlier in the case, Kanwar Deep Singh was arrested by the ED on Jan 12, 2021. Thereafter, a prosecution complaint was filed by the ED before the Special Court (PMLA), New Delhi, on March 2, 2021. Also, a supplementary prosecution complaint was filed on July 19, 2024. The ED has already provisionally attached movable and immovable properties worth Rs 238.42 crore through five separate provisional attachment orders. Further investigation is in progress. MSID:: 122862593 413 |
