Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
The dominant issue was whether an investigating agency has statutory authority under s. 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to attach or debit-freeze a bank account. Relying on settled law under the corresponding seizure power in s. 102 CrPC, as explained in precedent, the court held that police may seize only property that is stolen or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence; conversely, property not meeting this threshold cannot be seized. Since s. 106 BNSS does not confer an attachment/debit-freezing power over bank accounts, the impugned debit-freeze orders were quashed and set aside. - HC
The dominant issue was whether an investigating agency has statutory authority under s. 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to attach or debit-freeze a bank account. Relying on settled law under the corresponding seizure power in s. 102 CrPC, as explained in precedent, the court held that police may seize only property that is stolen or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence; conversely, property not meeting this threshold cannot be seized. Since s. 106 BNSS does not confer an attachment/debit-freezing power over bank accounts, the impugned debit-freeze orders were quashed and set aside. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
