Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During investigation by Enforcement Directorate, accused admitted paying crores of rupees for obtaining illegal favors from government servants, constituting money laundering offence u/s 3 of PMLA. Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld, stating Article 20(3) applies only when accused is compelled to witness against himself. Petitioners, though witnesses in scheduled offences, became accused in PMLA case based on their statements. Proceedings under scheduled offences and PMLA separate and distinct. Summoning petitioners justified to unearth money trail. Petitions dismissed.
Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During investigation by Enforcement Directorate, accused admitted paying crores of rupees for obtaining illegal favors from government servants, constituting money laundering offence u/s 3 of PMLA. Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld, stating Article 20(3) applies only when accused is compelled to witness against himself. Petitioners, though witnesses in scheduled offences, became accused in PMLA case based on their statements. Proceedings under scheduled offences and PMLA separate and distinct. Summoning petitioners justified to unearth money trail. Petitions dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
