9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h mindful that the Act is a path breaking enactment, based on the United Nations Resolutions to globally root out the use of illegal money, acquired via trade in drugs, illegal armaments, acts of terror and misuse of public office and is therefore, the need of the hour, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the indiscriminate application of the provisions of the Act at the whims and fancies of the Officers of the Respondent No.3, who it is alleged, in the absence of a mechanism of proper checks and balances is clothed with unbridled powers, under various sections, leading to possibilities of misuse of the law for personal, political and business vendetta. It is suggested that effective implementation of the Act can be achieved by evolving a mechanism consisting of a retired Judge, Ombudsman or Lok Ayukta, to examine cases in which the Act can be attracted, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the alleged offender. Agreeing that Sections 420, 467, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") have rightly been inserted in the Schedule of the Act and that a First Information Report (FIR) can be filed by any Police Station and brought under the Act to book those committing such h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Adjudicating Authority, seeking confirmation of its Provisional Attachment Order. The Adjudicating Authority issued Show Cause Notice to the EIILMU and confirmed the Provisional Attachment, vide Order dated 03-03-2015, assuming that the fees collected from students were "proceeds of crime". On 09-01-2015, the Joint Director of the Respondent No.3, provisionally attached immovable properties referred to in the Notice and lodged a Complaint dated 02-02-2015, before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order, who in turn issued Show Cause Notice to the EIILMU. That, FIRs for Scheduled offences covered under the Act cannot be called money-laundering or the amounts involved as "proceeds of crime". Thus, due to baseless inclusion of the Petitioner in the impugned ECIR by the Respondents No. 2 and 3, she has been defamed and her fundamental rights seriously prejudiced due to allegations of money-laundering. 4. The Respondents chose not to file Counter-Affidavit submitting that the questions raised were confined to legal propositions. 5. While reiterating the averments in the pleadings, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for short "Cr.P.C."), but proceedings under the Act do not culminate under the IPC as the Authorities have discretionary powers to continue under the Act and invoke all stringent provisions, including denial of bail and trial before a Special Court, thereby subjecting an offender to penalty before trial. 7. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act were assailed as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India as it bypasses the acclaimed principle of an offender's innocence until proven guilty. The provision can be invoked by the Respondent No.3 on "reason to believe", which is devoid of criteria, to freeze Bank Accounts, thereby jeopardizing the business of the Petitioner or claims could arise in favour of a third party and against the accused. The alleged offender would have to suffer the attachment order, before conviction, as steps against the accused are taken by attachment order or confiscation without even being charged of any offence. No opportunity of being heard is afforded to the Respondent before recording the reasons of such belief. Thus, Section 5 is unfair, unreasonable and open to misuse besides being violative of the principles of natural justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Section 24 of the Act would lead to needless incarceration and punishment before conviction. 13. That, Section 50 of the Act allows any statement recorded by the authorities as admissible in evidence and is contrary to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. That, Section 50(4) is identical to the provisions of Section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act"), which is presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, attention of this Court was drawn to the decision of K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 540 where it was held that a person ought not to be arrested straight away but enquiries ought to be made before such arrest and to the ratio in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another (2014) 8 SCC 273. 14. An additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioner urged that the Writ Petition is maintainable and no materials existed before the Enforcement Directorate against the Petitioner, to invoke the provisions of the Act, except the fact that she was named as an accused in the impugned Charge-sheet, despite absence of any evidence against her. That, the Charge-Sheet or Complaint may be quashed in exercise of pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded against for attachment or confiscation, on the satisfaction of the appropriate and competent Authority. That, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Smt. K. Sowbaghya vs. Union of India & Others MANU/KA/0192/2016 [Writ Petition No.14649 of 2014 (GM-RES) connected with Writ Petition No.19732 of 2014 (GM-RES) dated 28-01-2016], has upheld the validity of Section 5 of the Act. It was contended that Section 8 cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the attachment, retention and the essential authority to order confiscation of the property is dependent and contingent upon proof of guilt and finality of conviction for commission of offence under Section 3. The "reason to believe" on the part of the Adjudicating Authority prior to confiscation is in the scheme of the Act, while the determination of the guilt of the accused is in the exclusive domain of the Special Court. 17. With regard to the arguments on Section 24 of the Act, reliance was again placed on Smt. K. Sowbaghya9. Under Section 45 of the Act the contention put forth was that discretionary powers envisaged therein are not necessarily discriminatory. The mere possibility that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. It is pertinent to point out that in the averments of the Petitioner, the challenge to Section 42 of the Act finds no place, but has been inserted only in the prayer. In the absence of averments or arguments, this Section finds no place for consideration or discussion. 20. The constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 2(u), 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 24, 45 and 50 of the Act ultra vires Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, have been called in question herein. 21. Before embarking on a discussion on the merits, the parameters and principles laid down by judicial pronouncements, for adjudicating the constitutionality of an enactment or its provisions may be referred to. 22. In State of Bihar and Others, etc. etc. vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd., etc. AIR 1997 SC 1511 etc. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while judging constitutionality of an enactment, the Court should (a) try to sustain validity of the impugned law to the extent possible, it can strike down the enactment only when it is impossible to sustain it; (b) the Court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting or for the language employed; (c) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself ; (b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles ; (c) that it must be presumed that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds ; (d) that the Legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest ; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation ; and (f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a Legislature are to be presumed, if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fits obtained from illicit trafficking. (b) The initiatives under the aegis of the United Nations are; (i) United Nations Political Declaration and Action Plan against Money-Laundering 1988; (ii) United Nations Global Programme against Money Laundering; (iii) United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988; (iv) International Convention for Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 1999; (v) United Nations Convention against Organised Transnational Crimes 2000 and (vi) United Nations Convention against Corruption 2003. (c) Inter-Governmental initiatives emerged such as the "Basel Committee on Banking Regulation and Supervisory Practices" in 1988, which exchanges information and proposes international standards for Banks, to identify customers, avoid suspicious transactions and cooperation with law enforcement agencies to deal with the problem of money-laundering. The Offshore Group of Banking system, International Organization of Securities Commissions, Common Wealth Model Laws of money-laundering are all engaged in working together on anti money-laundering in the financial sector. The Financial Action Task Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestment in real estate or other methods, to wipe away its association with crime. 30. In Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its concern in the matter as follows; "5. The worries of this Court that arise, in the context of the matters placed before us, are with respect to transfers of monies, and accumulation of monies, which are unaccounted for by many individuals and other legal entities in the country, in foreign banks. The worries of this Court relate not merely to the quantum of monies said to have been secreted away in foreign banks, but also the manner in which they may have been taken away from the country, and with the nature of activities that may have engendered the accumulation of such monies. The worries of this Court are also with regard to the nature of activities that such monies may engender, both in terms of the concentration of economic power, and also the fact that such monies may be transferred to groups and individuals who may use them for unlawful activities that are extremely dangerous to the nation, including actions against the State. The worries of this Court also relate to whether the activities of eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e", then any transfer in terms of Section 2(za) requires examination to verify as to whether it is by way of a money-laundering operation involving the process of placement, layering or integration. Such property could be subjected to attachment and confiscation, the Section, however, does not presuppose knowledge of the proceeds being of criminal activity. Properties apart from the "proceeds of crime" are not liable to attachment, neither is it included in the ambit of the Act. All that the Section is concerned with is the "proceeds of crime" and does not extend to property not so involved. The argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the provision necessarily includes a guilty mind, therefore, cannot be countenanced. While reading Section 2 and Section 3 of the Act in juxtaposition it is clear that only a person who is 'involved' with the "proceeds of crime" would be guilty of the offence under Section 3 and not a person who is only in 'possession' of the "proceeds of crime" sans mens rea. This, of course, depends on whether there is reasonable grounds for such suspicion as couched in the language of Section 5 of the Act. A conjunctive reading of Sections 2 and Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 23(1)(a) of that Act. 35. In J. K. Industries Limited and Others vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and Others (1996) 6 SCC 665 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the offences under the Factories Act, 1948, are not part of general penal law but arise from the breach of a duty provided in a special beneficial social defence legislation, which creates absolute or strict liability, without proof of any mens rea; the offence are strict statutory offences for which establishment of mens rea is not an essential ingredient. The omission or commission of the statutory breach is itself the offence. Similar type of offences based on the principle of strict liability, which means liability without fault or mens rea, exist in many statutes relating to economic crime as well as in laws concerning the industry, food adulteration, prevention of pollution, etc. in India and abroad. Absolute offences are not criminal offences in any real sense but acts which are prohibited in the interest of welfare of the public and the prohibition is backed by sanction of penalty and such offences are generally known as public welfare offences. 36. Pertinently, the provisions of Section 2 are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the discussions that have ensued it is evident that the definition of "proceeds of crime" has the goal of preventing and stemming criminal activities related to money-laundering at its very inception and cannot be said to be arbitrary or absurdly expansive, or seeking to penalise even non-offenders. Thus, the provision does not suffer from any infirmity. 39. Section 3 of the Act defines the offence of money- laundering and reads as follows; "3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it is untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering." While Section 4 of the Act is the penalty for such crime and provides as under; "4. Punishment for money-laundering.- Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that where the proceeds of crime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for India and Others vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and Others (1994) 5 SCC 54 which while considering the validity of the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, (for short "SAFEMA") observed that; "44. ..................... The relatives and associates are brought in only for the purpose of ensuring that the illegally acquired properties of the convict or detenu, acquired or kept in their names, do not escape the net of the Act. It is a well-known fact that persons indulging in illegal activities screen the properties acquired from such illegal activity in the names of their relatives and associates. Sometimes they transfer such properties to them, may be, with an intent to transfer the ownership and title. .......................................................... 56. .................................................... (5) The application of SAFEMA to the relatives and associates [in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 2(2)] is equally valid and effective inasmuch as the purpose and object of bringing such persons within the net of SAFEMA is to reach the properties of the detenu or convict, as the case may be, wherever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty provided for by the Act, however, neither the minimum term nor rigorous imprisonment for an offence means that the provisions are ultra vires. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat while discussing the liability of the prisoners sentence to rigorous imprisonment, culled out the following principles; "50. ......................................................... (1) It is lawful to employ the prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to do hard labour whether he consents to do it or not. (2) It is open to the jail officials to permit other prisoners also to do any work which they choose to do provided such prisoners make a request for that purpose. (3) It is imperative that the prisoners should be paid equitable wages for the work done by them. In order to determine the quantum of equitable wages payable to prisoners, the State concerned shall constitute a wage-fixation body for making recommendations. We direct to each State to do so as early as possible. (4) Until the State Government takes any decision on such recommendations, every prisoner must be paid wages for the work done by him at such rates or revised rates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country: Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the nonattachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act. (2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attach the property. Once attachment of property under Section 5(1) takes place the Authority is to forward a copy of the order along with relevant materials to the Adjudicating Authority, as per procedure prescribed. The order of attachment, made under Section 5(1), shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified therein or on the date of an order made under Section 8(2), whichever is earlier. Section 8(2), to be discussed later, specifies the process that the Adjudicating Authority shall take after a reply has been filed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 8. The aggrieved person shall be heard and all relevant materials taken into consideration. Section 5(4) of the Act gives liberty to the person whose property is attached to enjoy the immovable property. Under Section 5(5), the Director or any other Officer who provisionally attaches any property under Section 5(1) shall within a period of thirty days from such provisional attachment, file a Complaint stating the facts of such attachment, before the Adjudicating Authority. A careful perusal of the provision ostensibly indicates that no arbitrary powers are afforded to the concerned Officers as the provisional a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace and the apprehended danger. It would be appropriate to extract herein the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph 42, which reads as follows; "42. Having given our anxious and solicitous consideration to this question, we are of the opinion that the procedure prescribed by Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access, cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. There is no static measure of reasonableness which can be applied to all situations alike. Indeed, the question "Is this procedure reasonable?" implies and postulates the inquiry as to whether the procedure prescribed is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In Francis Coralie Mullin [(1981) 1 SCC 608], Bhagwati, J., said at p. 524 : (SCC p. 615, para 4) ... it is for the Court to decide in exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review whether the deprivation of life or personal liberty in a given case is by procedure, which is reasonable, fair and just or it is otherwise. (emphasis supplied)" 46. In Mohammad Jafar4 the challenge was to certain provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority. The provisions of Section 5 while aiming to achieve the object of the Act cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19 or 300A of the Constitution of India. 48. Section 8 of the Act deals with adjudication and reads as follows; "8. Adjudication.-(1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, he may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money laundering and confiscated by the Central Government: Provided that where a notice under this sub-section speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all have the same effect as if the property had been taken possession of. (5) Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property involved in the money-laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government. (6) Where on conclusion of a trial under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has not taken place or the property is not involved in money-laundering, it shall order release of such property to the person entitled to receive it. (7) Where the trial under this Act cannot be conducted by reason of the death of the accused or the accused being declared a proclaimed offender or for any other reason or having commenced but could not be concluded, the Special Court shall, on an application moved by the Director or a person claiming to be entitled to possession of a property in respect of which an order has been passed under sub-section (3) of section 8, pass appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of the property, as the case may be, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after giving an opportunity to the person of being heard, may either confirm the attachment of the property, or else as a natural corollary release such property, by demurring to pass an order of confirmation to the property attached provisionally or part of it. 51. The rights of the offender or any person in possession of "proceeds of crime" are clearly protected by reading the provisions of Section 5 and Section 8 cumulatively, inasmuch as the provisional attachment can be confirmed only after the Adjudicating Authority affords an opportunity to the offender or any person holding the property to establish his sources of income. The Director is also given the opportunity of being heard at that stage. Should it be found that the property held is from legitimate sources then the question of confirmation of order of provisional attachment does not arise. In any event, the provisions of Section 5(4) continue to hold sway when the provisional attachment obtains and the accused is not prevented from enjoyment of the immovable property attached under Section 5(1) of the Act. Hence, there is no reason to hold that the provisions of Section 8 is either arbitrary or violative of fundament ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 498A of the IPC as unconstitutional and ultra vires, it was held that; "12. It is well settled that mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. It must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that administration and application of a particular law would be done "not with an evil eye and unequal hand". (See A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatichalam Potti) [AIR 1956 SC 246] 54. On the same question, reference may also be made to the following ratio; (i) In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1997) 5 SCC 536 a Bench of nine Judges observed that mere possibility of abuse of a provision by those in charge of administering it cannot be a ground for holding a provision procedurally or substantively unreasonable. (ii) In The Collector of Customs, Madras and Another vs. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Another 1961 (1) Cri.L.J. 364 it was observed that; "(33) ..................................................... The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity. ......................" (iii) In State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Union of India a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 3 and Section 2(p) which provides that "money-laundering" has the meaning assigned to it in Section 3. 57. The argument forwarded by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, by including certain offences under the IPC in the Schedule of the Act, such inclusion does not subserve the aim and objective of the Act. It may be highlighted here that the "offences under the Indian Penal Code" had been incorporated in Part B, in the Schedule, by Section 13 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009 (No.21 of 2009), however, it was omitted from Part B, in the Schedule, by Section 30 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2012 (No.2 of 2013), and incorporated into Part A, in the Schedule. The object of the Act as already pointed out in elaborate discussions under Section 2(u), is to abort the process of money-laundering at its inception. Thus, the wisdom of the Legislature cannot be questioned, when such inclusion has been made, as there may be circumstances where the predicate offence and the offence under Section 3 are intertwined. 58. While discussing the vires of Section 24 of the Act, the proceedings under the Act commences with provisional at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish the source of his property, which if legitimate can be fully justified by the Petitioner. 60. Section 45 of the Act has next been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that, imposing limitations on bail is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the grant of bail is subjected to specifications, viz., grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any while offence on bail. 61. To examine the aforesaid submissions, we may extract the relevant provision of the Act; "45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless" (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be imposed as the import of the accused remaining at large, the impact on society by his enlargement on bail or whether such bail would thwart the ends of justice, all merit consideration. Thus, the evidence before the Court must be worthwhile under Section 45(ii) of the Act, to persuade the Court to conclude that, if rebutted, the accused might be convicted. Evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" is not envisaged at this stage. In my considered opinion, the limitations are not unfounded or arbitrary. The Legislature has evidently used the words "reasonable grounds for believing", in Section 45(1)(ii) to enable the Court dealing with the bail, to justifiably hold, as to whether there is indeed a genuine case against the accused and whether the prosecution is able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge and the evidence so furnished if unrebutted could lead to a conviction. Apprehension of repetition of the crime is another consideration in refusing bail, as also the antecedents of an accused person. The prosecution has not been given arbitrary or wide amplitude under Section 45, as the provision with clarity lays down that the matter for consideration falls within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case, the claim for future prospects ought not to be gone into by us. The said claim, therefore, is refused." 64. Toeing the line of the above observation, it would be apposite to hold here that as the matter of constitutionality of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which bears a similarity to Section 50 of the Act is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be in the correctness of things not to enter into a discussion of the matter where a decision is awaited. 65. The Petitioner also sought quashing of the ECIR dated 19-02-2014. No separate application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. While dealing with this issue, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Kumar Suneja vs. C.B.I. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 766 [Criminal Appeal No.1317 of 2017 dated 17-07-2017] wherein the Supreme Court discussed the ambit of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion is extracted below; "43. ................................. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed under the Cr.P.C. or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
