TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of remand orders under Prevention of Money Laundering Act upheld</h1> <h3>Pankaj Bansal, Basant Bansal Versus Union of India and others</h3> Pankaj Bansal, Basant Bansal Versus Union of India and others - TMI Issues Involved:The validity of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the legality of remand orders issued against the petitioners challenging the procedure followed during their custody.Judgment Summary:Challenge to Section 19(1) of PMLA:The petitioners contested the constitutionality of Section 19(1) of the PMLA and sought to quash remand orders against them. The petitioners were implicated in money laundering activities involving IREO and M3M groups. The court rejected the challenge to Section 19(1) and upheld the remand orders due to the serious nature of the allegations and ongoing investigations.Legality of Remand Orders:The petitioners argued that their arrest and remand violated procedural safeguards under PMLA. They were remanded to custody without proper compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the court found that the remand orders were validly issued by the competent court after due consideration of the merits. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality in the remand process, leading to the rejection of their plea for release on bail.Investigation into Allegations against Judicial Officer:Allegations were made against a judicial officer for favoritism towards individuals linked to IREO and M3M groups. These serious allegations were under investigation by respondent No.2. Due to the gravity of the accusations, the court denied the petitioners' request for release from custody. The court ordered the respondents to provide a status report on the investigation progress by a specified date.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the ongoing investigation's importance in determining the petitioners' involvement in the alleged crimes. The court upheld the legality of the remand orders and rejected the petitioners' plea for release based on the seriousness of the accusations and the need for further investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
