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>Court denies bail application citing legal remand under Cr.P.C Section 309, stresses procedural adherence.</h1> <h3>Yogesh Mittal Versus Enforcement Directorate</h3> Yogesh Mittal Versus Enforcement Directorate - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 115 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody.2. Application of relevant legal provisions under PMLA and Cr.P.C.3. Validity of the remand orders passed by the Special Court.4. Cognizance of the offence and its implications on remand.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody:The petitioner argued that his remand in judicial custody was illegal as the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to remand him further after the presentation of the prosecution under Section 44 of the PMLA without taking cognizance. The petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2017 and remanded to E.D custody by the Special Court, PMLA. The prosecution/complaint was filed on 02.08.2017, and the petitioner was continuously remanded to E.D custody. The petitioner argued that his remand exceeded the permissible period of 60 days and was not in accordance with the statutory provisions, thus entitling him to bail.2. Application of relevant legal provisions under PMLA and Cr.P.C:The judgment discusses the application of Sections 19, 43, 44, and 45 of the PMLA and Sections 167, 173, and 309 of the Cr.P.C. Section 19 of the PMLA outlines the power of arrest, requiring the arrested person to be taken to a Magistrate within 24 hours. Section 44 of the PMLA specifies that offences under the Act are triable by Special Courts, which can take cognizance of offences without committal proceedings. Section 167 of the Cr.P.C deals with the procedure when the investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours, allowing remand for a maximum of 60 or 90 days depending on the offence. Section 309 of the Cr.P.C allows remand post-cognizance for the purpose of adjournment or further investigation.3. Validity of the remand orders passed by the Special Court:The petitioner contended that the remand orders were illegal as they were signed by the Reader of the Court and not the Presiding Officer, and some orders did not specify the remand period. The Court acknowledged these procedural irregularities but did not find them sufficient to grant bail. It emphasized that remand orders must be passed by the Court and not by its staff, and remand periods should not exceed 15 days in one go.4. Cognizance of the offence and its implications on remand:The Court examined the concept of cognizance, which involves judicial notice of an offence. It was argued that cognizance was taken on 25.02.2017 against other accused, and the complaint against the petitioner was tagged with the main complaint, implying cognizance against the petitioner as well. The Court held that the remand post-02.08.2017 was under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C for further investigation, which is permissible even after cognizance is taken.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the bail application, stating that the remand of the petitioner was legal under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C for further investigation. However, it criticized the procedural lapses, such as remand orders being signed by the Reader and remand periods exceeding 15 days, and cautioned the Special Court to adhere strictly to procedural requirements. The petitioner was advised to approach the Special Court for bail on individual merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
