9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1398 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - issuance of summons - summons issued as an accused or as a witness - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary s case 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT has already ruled that the two provisions, as not ultra vires of the Constitution and that the summons, which have been issued to the petitioner, have become infructuous because of efflux of time, it is opined that the writ application is not maintainable. Hence, we do not entertain the writ application and consider that it is not a fit case to rule nisi the respondents. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
The petition challenges the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and seeks to declare certain summons as illegal and void. Summary: Issue 1: The petitioner, the Chief Minister of the State, filed a writ petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and to declare specific summons as illegal and void. The petitioner also sought writs restraining the respondents from acting on the summons. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the summons had become infructuous due to the passage of time and that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. Issue 2: During the hearing, it was argued that the summons issued to the petitioner did not specify whether the petitioner was summoned as an accused or a witness. The petitioner's counsel contended that the summons did not indicate the predicate agency or offences, and no FIR had been registered against the petitioner. The Court noted these arguments but ultimately found the writ petition not maintainable due to the summons becoming infructuous and the settled legal position regarding the challenged provisions. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered in this case.
|
