9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 2035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned Order, reference has been made to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI [ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT ], wherein the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50 of PMLA. Therefore, the relief sought may have existed at the time when the petition was filed in 2019, but with the findings of the Apex Court, the relief stood answered and satisfied. It is clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the other reliefs as sought in their prayers in the Writ Petitions, before the appropriate Forum. Application disposed off. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in certain paragraphs of the impugned judgement, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner, Pradeep Koneru had been stated to be an accused in PMLA case, which is admittedly incorrect and these observations have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 4. Sh. Shohaib Hussain, ld. Spl. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent ED, has admitted that Petitioner was only a witness in the PMLA case, though an accused in the CBI case. 5. Submissions Heard. 6. At the outset, we may observe that though two Petitions were filed by the Petitioner, but instead of separately stating facts and the challenge to proceedings under PMLA and CBI case separately, they have been mixed up in the two Petitions. During the course of arguments, Ld. Senior Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words his brother Madhu Koneru stands deleted. 11. Paragraph 83 reads as under: Satish Babu Sana and Pradeep Koneru have, thus, prima facie committed offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 by directly or indirectly indulging in, knowingly assisting, knowingly a party and actually involved in all or any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. 12. However, undisputedly Pradeep Koneru was only cited as a witness in the PMLA case. Therefore, paragraph 83 is factually incorrect and stands deleted. 13. The relevant part of paragraph 85 reads as under : Admittedly, in the present case, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
