<?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>2024 (9) TMI 508 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758264</link>
    <description>The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 operates as a special, self-contained code with overriding effect, so summons issued under Section 50 are not controlled by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provisions on police investigation, document production, or territorial limits. The Court treated Section 50 as an inquiry power for requiring attendance, evidence, and records, and held that compliance does not amount to unconstitutional testimonial compulsion under Articles 20(3) or 21. It also found no basis for a separate gender-based protection within Section 50 and upheld the summons to attend in New Delhi. Non-compliance with a lawful summons may attract the statutory consequences under Section 63(4) and Section 174 IPC, and the complaint and cognizance orders were not illegal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2024 16:51:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 508 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758264</link>
      <description>The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 operates as a special, self-contained code with overriding effect, so summons issued under Section 50 are not controlled by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provisions on police investigation, document production, or territorial limits. The Court treated Section 50 as an inquiry power for requiring attendance, evidence, and records, and held that compliance does not amount to unconstitutional testimonial compulsion under Articles 20(3) or 21. It also found no basis for a separate gender-based protection within Section 50 and upheld the summons to attend in New Delhi. Non-compliance with a lawful summons may attract the statutory consequences under Section 63(4) and Section 174 IPC, and the complaint and cognizance orders were not illegal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>