Tamil Nadu gets Madras HC pat for SOPs on EOW action
Pointing to the G.O. passed to include 'economic offenders' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (Goondas Act), Justice B Pugalendhi called it a major policy shift that empowers the authorities to invoke preventive detention against habitual offenders operating fraudulent financial firms. Recalling that the court had earlier expressed concern over lack of preventive vigilance by the EOW, the judge acknowledged the state's submission regarding the steps being taken.
However, noting that no outer time limit has been fixed for issuance of ad-interim attachment orders under Section 3 of the TNPID Act, the judge fixed 12 days from the receipt of proposal by the ADGP, EOW, as the maximum permissible period for issuing such directions.
The observations were made on a contempt plea against the home secretary for non-implementation of the court's order in his petition seeking release of deposit from a frozen bank account of a firm involved in fraud.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Jharkhand High Court delivers split verdict on death sentence given to 2 Maoists in murder of six policemen
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court (HC) delivered a split verdict while hearing appeals against the death sentence given to two Maoists for the 2013 attack on a police team, in which six personnel, including Pakur SP Amarjit Balihar, were killed. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay was in favour of acquitting the convicts, while Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld the death sentence. The HC was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Pravir Murmu alias 'Pravir Da' and Santan Baskey alias 'Tala Da'. The trial in the case was conducted at the Dumka sessions court, which gave a death sentence to the convicts on September 26, 2018. Thereafter, the convicts filed their respective appeals before the HC. The division bench of the HC delivered a 197-page judgement on July 17. The police team, led by SP Balihar, was attacked by Maoists on July 2, 2013. The Maoists opened fire on two police vehicles, claiming the lives of six personnel -- Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Hembram, Chandan Kumar Thapa, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Santosh Kumar Mandal and Balihar. Constables Lebenius Marandi and Dhanraj Maraiya, who were part of the team, had survived the carnage. Mr. Marandi and Mr. Maraiya gave statements as eyewitnesses and claimed that they heard the names of Pravir and Tala being called out by the attackers. The prosecution examined 31 witnesses, including the two eyewitnesses. While delivering his judgment, Justice Mukhopadhyay held that the statements of the eyewitnesses were not reliable. They had deposed that they had become unconscious after the attack and therefore could not have heard the names of the appellants, he noted. 'Though both Mr. Marandi and Mr. Maraiya were witnesses to the occurrence, they had not seen the convicts participating in the mayhem,' he observed. Justice Mukhopadhyay set aside the order of conviction and the death sentence given in the case. Justice Prasad took a divergent view and held that the eyewitnesses had identified Pravir and Tala in court to be present at the place of occurrence. He further held that the gruesome murder of an IPS officer along with his team during the discharge of their official duty does not evoke any sympathy. Affirming the death sentence, Justice Prasad directed the state government to provide a compensation of ₹2 crore to the kin of the deceased SP and give a job in the rank of DSP or deputy collector to his son or daughter. Also, a compensation of ₹50 lakh each should be provided to the family members of the five policemen who died in the incident, he directed, asking the state government to also give class IV jobs to them on compassionate grounds. The case is expected to be taken up by the HC's chief justice for further legal procedures.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
ED not a super cop or drone to probe everything at will: High Court
The Madras High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot act at will, emphasising it was neither a "super cop" with infinite investigative powers nor a "loitering munition" capable of arbitrarily attacking financial institutions.A division bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan made these strong remarks while hearing a petition from RKM Powergen Private Ltd, a Chennai-based company. The firm had challenged the ED's freezing of its fixed deposits worth Rs 901 crore in a money laundering probe agency's action came after an FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2014 over the allocation of coal blocks for a power plant in Chhattisgarh. However, in 2017, the CBI filed a closure, stating that no wrongdoing had been found in the allocation process. But, a special CBI court was not satisfied with the closure report and asked for further investigation. In 2023, the CBI filed a supplementary final report, which found there were sufficient incriminating materials warranting prosecution under sections of the the-then Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption this, the ED conducted searches in the premises of directors and holding companies associated with RKMP. On January 31 this year, an order was passed wherein the fixed deposit to the tune of Rs 901 crore was frozen by the ED. The company challenged the said order and the court set it note of these developments, the Madras High Court said that under Section 66(2) of PMLA, if the ED discovered violations of other provisions of law, it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences too. If the ED finds other types of legal breaches, it should inform the appropriate agency authorised to handle those matters, the court observed."It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate that offence. If that agency, on the intimation of the ED, commences an investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are proceeds of crime," the bench said."In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot proceed with the investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and 'proceeds of crime'. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity," it court also noted that no separate complaint had been filed in relation to the supposed new offences the ED pointed to. "The ED is not a super cop to investigate anything and everything which comes to its notice," it added."There should be a 'criminal activity' which attracts the schedule to PMLA, and on account of such criminal activity, there should have been proceeds of crime," the bench said.- Ends(with inputs from PTI)Must Watch IN THIS STORY#Chennai
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Plea in Supreme Court critcises Centre, Delhi Police for non-registration of FIR in Justice Varma incident
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court criticising the Centre for not initiating 'an effective and meaningful investigation' into allegations of discovery and removal of 'burnt' cash from the residential premises of High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, in Delhi following a fire. 'The Central government, which is in charge of the Delhi Police, on it being reported that there has been an incident of huge volumes of currency notes, burned and partially burned, being found and clandestinely removed from the official residence of Justice Varma, was duty-bound to direct the Delhi Police to register an First Information Report (FIR). It amounts to a great failure in the discharge of its sovereign function, nay, duty to investigate crimes and secure punishment to those who violate the law,' advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, petitioner-in-person, submitted in a petition. In fact, the petition echoed the very report of the in-house inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, which had also criticised the Delhi Police for its lack of quick action. The inquiry committee had concluded that the police and fire authorities were 'slipshod' for not lodging an FIR or preparing a seizure memo recording exactly what they came across at the scene of the fire on March 14-15. The committee said the 'higher police officers' had sought to explain their inaction by pointing to reasons like the 'sensitivity of the issue' and the absence of Justice Varma at his residence at the time of incident. The judge was in Bhopal at the time of the blaze. Justice Varma, who has himself approached the apex court anonymously in a petition, too has focussed his defence on the lack of any material evidence to base the allegations raised against him. He has attempted to discredit the conclusions reached in the in-house inquiry report by contending they were entirely based on presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events banked on photos and videos privately taken by some officials, his petition in the apex court said. The inquiry committee had submitted a confidential report in early May, affirming the presence of cash and recommending the removal of Justice Varma from office. The then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister to commence the processes of a removal motion in the Parliament. Mr. Nedumpara's petition is the third in a series filed by the advocate in the apex court for registration of an FIR. It has coincided with both Justice Varma approaching the apex court and the opening of the Monsoon Session of the Parliament, in which the Opposition is poised to raise a debate on the removal motion. On the first instance, Mr. Nedumpara had been asked by the top court to await the outcome of the in-house inquiry by a fact-finding committee of three judges appointed by the Chief Justice of India. 'After the committee had submitted its report, no FIR was registered. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition and was asked by the court to approach the President and the Prime Minister… To the petitioner's knowledge no FIR has been registered till date,' the petitoner-advocate submitted. The petition urged the apex court to direct the Centre/Delhi Police to register an FIR and cause or in the alternative to direct the Police/Union government to seek permission of the Chief Justice for the registration of an FIR… what is at stake is the concept of the rule of law, equality before law and equal protection of law,' the petition argued. The advocate intends to make an oral mentioning in court for an early hearing of his petition.
