Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the PMLA complaint and cognizance order was liable to be allowed on the ground that the foundational CBI proceedings against the petitioner had earlier been quashed and, therefore, no offence of money laundering was made out against him.
Analysis: The petition rested on the contention that the alleged predicate offence against the petitioner had been quashed and that, in any event, the material did not establish any involvement in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The objection raised by the opposite party was that the PMLA complaint disclosed independent material, including statements recorded during investigation, showing the petitioner's role in arranging funds, managing the HUF accounts and facilitating transactions said to be connected with laundering of proceeds of crime. The Court held that the documents relied upon by the petitioner, including the earlier quashing order, were matters of defence and could not be relied upon at the stage of quashing. The disputed factual issues were held to require consideration during trial.
Conclusion: The request for quashing was not accepted and the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed.