Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
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.