Lawfulness of arrests under the PMLA was contested on whether the authorised officer considered exculpatory material, had reasonable 'reasons to believe', and complied with procedural safeguards. The court held that the officer's recorded material and nexus to conclusions met review standards and did not breach Wednesbury reasonableness; interim stay of magistrate order or subsequent settlements not cancelling FIRs did not automatically invalidate investigation or prior arrest. Judicial review under constitutional writ jurisdiction was limited to legality and procedure, not merits, and the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.
Lawfulness of arrests under the PMLA was contested on whether the authorised officer considered exculpatory material, had reasonable 'reasons to believe', and complied with procedural safeguards. The court held that the officer's recorded material and nexus to conclusions met review standards and did not breach Wednesbury reasonableness; interim stay of magistrate order or subsequent settlements not cancelling FIRs did not automatically invalidate investigation or prior arrest. Judicial review under constitutional writ jurisdiction was limited to legality and procedure, not merits, and the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
