TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a person already in custody in another case can be produced under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter be remanded under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the present proceedings. (ii) Whether the requirements of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were complied with before the impugned remand order was passed, and whether the remand was liable to be quashed on the grounds urged.
Issue (i): Whether a person already in custody in another case can be produced under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter be remanded under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the present proceedings.
Analysis: Section 267 enables production of a person detained in another case before the court dealing with a different matter. The reasoning accepted that a person already in judicial custody may be produced on a prison warrant, and that remand in the new case is not barred merely because the person was already confined elsewhere. The production has to be followed by a lawful basis for custody in the new case, and the court may act on the formal arrest and the request for remand.
Conclusion: The remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not invalid merely because the petitioner was already in custody in another case.
Issue (ii): Whether the requirements of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were complied with before the impugned remand order was passed, and whether the remand was liable to be quashed on the grounds urged.
Analysis: The court accepted that Section 19 requires reasons to believe, material in possession, recording of reasons in writing, and communication of the grounds of arrest. On the facts, the petition served through the prison authorities was treated as sufficient to show the reasons for arrest and the grounds were conveyed to the petitioner. The court also found that the earlier proceedings relied on by the petitioner did not stay the investigation or the remand proceedings, and therefore did not render the impugned order illegal.
Conclusion: Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held to have been complied with, and the remand order was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The remand order and the subsequent custody orders were sustained, and no interference was warranted in the exercise of quashing jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
