https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436453 The Court held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not mandate joint trials of PMLA offenses and scheduled offenses. It clarified that seeking committal under Section 44(1)(c) is discretionary and not obligatory. As the PMLA authority did not request committal for scheduled offenses, the petitioners cannot demand it as a right. The Court recommended the PMLA authority to exercise discretion and approach the Vigilance court for committal if deemed appropriate. The petitions were disposed of, highlighting the discretionary nature of seeking committal and the significance of judicial discretion in such cases. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:00:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436453 The Court held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not mandate joint trials of PMLA offenses and scheduled offenses. It clarified that seeking committal under Section 44(1)(c) is discretionary and not obligatory. As the PMLA authority did not request committal for scheduled offenses, the petitioners cannot demand it as a right. The Court recommended the PMLA authority to exercise discretion and approach the Vigilance court for committal if deemed appropriate. The petitions were disposed of, highlighting the discretionary nature of seeking committal and the significance of judicial discretion in such cases. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436453