9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y MADANLAL CHOUDHARY ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] . It is observed that before concluding, that the prayer made in both the Writ Petitions was to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 50 PMLA. It paragraph 84 of the impugned Order, reference has been made to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. UOI 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 as mentioned above, the relief stood answered and satisfied. It is concluded that there were only typographical errors in the impugned Order which hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 PMLA, and (ii) whether a person formally accused of the offence under Section 3 and 4 PMLA is entitled to protection under Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution and Section 25 Indian Evidence Act in case of Summons issued under Section 50 PMLA. Moreover, there are several prejudicial observations against the petitioner which are patently contrary to the record of the case and did not arise for adjudication in the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out certain factual errors in various paragraphs which needs to be corrected. 4. Sh. Zoheb 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. Submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, the petitioner has never admitted to payments for any illegal purpose. 12. The necessary correction is hereby made in paragraph 80 to indicate that these allegation had been made by ED against the petitioner. 13. 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. 14. In paragraph 83 there are erroneous findings, which are hereby deleted. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench 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 as mentioned above, the relief stood answered and satisfied. 20. We may thus, conclude that there were only typographical errors in the impugned Order which hereby stand rectified, as discussed above. There is no ground for recall of the impugned Order, as has also been conceded by Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner. 21. We hereby clarify that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the other reliefs as sought in his prayer in the Writ Petition, before the appropriate Forum. 22. The interim protection shall remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
