https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348095 In PMLA proceedings, pre-complaint custody was treated as governed by Section 167 CrPC, while post-complaint and post-cognizance custody fell under Section 309 CrPC by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA. The complaint under Section 44 was treated as analogous to a final report, and cognizance on the complaint against co-accused was taken to extend to the tagged complaint against the petitioner. The Court also stated that further investigation may continue after filing of the complaint, and custody for that purpose is not barred merely because cognizance has been taken. Remand beyond fifteen days at one time was deprecated, and remand should be passed by the Court itself, not mechanically by the Reader, but these defects were treated as procedural irregularities rather than grounds to invalidate custody. en-us Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348095 In PMLA proceedings, pre-complaint custody was treated as governed by Section 167 CrPC, while post-complaint and post-cognizance custody fell under Section 309 CrPC by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA. The complaint under Section 44 was treated as analogous to a final report, and cognizance on the complaint against co-accused was taken to extend to the tagged complaint against the petitioner. The Court also stated that further investigation may continue after filing of the complaint, and custody for that purpose is not barred merely because cognizance has been taken. Remand beyond fifteen days at one time was deprecated, and remand should be passed by the Court itself, not mechanically by the Reader, but these defects were treated as procedural irregularities rather than grounds to invalidate custody. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348095