9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was heard at length on the stay petition. 3. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner, who is an old man aged 72 years, is the proprietor of M/s. Anupam Krishi, and doing the business in fertilizers since 1979. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is supplying fertilizers either through wholesalers or registered retailers, being a C&F Agent of IPL. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner's house and business premises were raided on 22.07.2020 by the respondents, while exercising powers under Sections 16, 17 & 18 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2002'). 6. Learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mundra (Kutch), and accordingly, the necessary proceedings were initiated. 12. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that the offence under Section 132, Section 135 (1)(i)(A) & Section 135(1) (i)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 120-B of IPC are Scheduled Offences as per Schedule of the Act of 2002, and therefore, on the basis of the documents provided in the proceedings under the Customs Act, prima facie case for an offence of money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the Act of 2002, and punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002, has been found to be made out, and thus, the investigation was warranted. 13. Learned Additional Solicitor General thus, vehemently submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in AIR 1973 SC 908; (h) Rajbhushan Om Prakash Dixit Vs. Union of India, reported in 2018 SCC OnLIne Del. 7281; (i) D.K. Trivedi & Sons Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1986 Supp SCC 20; (j) State of Punjab Vs. Barkat Ram, reported in (1962) 3 SCR 338; (k) Badaku Joti Savant Vs. State of Mysore, reported in (1966) 3 SCR 698; (l) Ramesh Chandra Mehta Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1970 SC 940; (m) Illias Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1065. (n) K.I. Pavunny Vs. Asstt. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 721; (o) Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom. 9938 and; (p) Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question are at a very nascent stage, and the learned Additional Solicitor General has categorically submitted that the present petition itself is premature at this stage, as it is only a stage of issuance of summons, and the petitioner do not qualify as a person aggrieved; but at the same time, when question was posed to the learned Additional Solicitor General that whether any chances of arrest are there, he fairly submitted that Section 19 of the Act of 2002 empowers them to make an arrest, and thus, there cannot be a denial of seeking invocation of the said provision of law. 17. At this stage, when the stay petition was being heard, this Court does not wish to enter into the merits of the case so as not to prejudice the case of either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
