<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (6) TMI 1135 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424294</link>
    <description>Section 197 CrPC sanction was held unnecessary where the alleged retention and concealment of tainted money had no nexus with official duty, and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 contains no separate sanction requirement. At the cognizance stage, the complaint and recorded statements provided prima facie material of possession and concealment of proceeds of crime, so the trial court&#039;s summons and cognizance order disclosed no illegality or perversity. Defences based on compulsion, threat, or non-arraying of other persons involved disputed facts to be tested at trial. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the prosecution was allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:23:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1135 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424294</link>
      <description>Section 197 CrPC sanction was held unnecessary where the alleged retention and concealment of tainted money had no nexus with official duty, and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 contains no separate sanction requirement. At the cognizance stage, the complaint and recorded statements provided prima facie material of possession and concealment of proceeds of crime, so the trial court&#039;s summons and cognizance order disclosed no illegality or perversity. Defences based on compulsion, threat, or non-arraying of other persons involved disputed facts to be tested at trial. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the prosecution was allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>