TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arrest of the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential remand orders were vitiated for want of tangible material forming reasons to believe that the petitioner was guilty of money laundering.
Analysis: The Court held that the power of arrest under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is conditioned by strict statutory safeguards and that judicial review extends to examining whether the authorised officer had material capable of supporting a prima facie belief of guilt, without entering upon sufficiency or adequacy as such. On the record placed before it, the Court found that the case against the petitioner rested mainly on statements, WhatsApp chats and broad assertions, while no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner's possession or premises and no concrete linkage of the petitioner to identified proceeds of crime was shown for the relevant date of arrest. The Court further held that post-arrest material could not be used to justify the legality of the arrest made earlier.
Conclusion: The arrest was held illegal and the remand orders were quashed; the petitioner was entitled to release subject to filing the undertaking directed by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
