2023 (5) TMI 1375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition so far as the prayer clauses (a) to (e) of the writ petition are concerned, however he submits that so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the petitioner be permitted to approach the appropriate forum as may be permissible under the law. 2. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing through virtual mode on behalf of the Union of India however, objected to the grant of any liberty to the petitioner by submitting that the prayers sought in clauses (a) to (e), including clause (c) are already covered by the judgment of Three-Judge Bench in the case of "Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others" (2022 SCC online....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Criminal WPR 251/2023 Appeal Nos.1671-1673 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.12779-81/2022: "74. Admitting the inevitable position in law that as a Two Member Bench, we are bound by the decision of the Three Member Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, Shri Kapil Sibal argued that the matter may be placed before a Three Member Bench for resolving the conundrum created by the PMLA. In this connection, he drew our attention to paragraph 113 of the decision of another Three Member Bench in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (2023) 3 SCC 315, wherein this Court expressed an opinion that the ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary with respect to confiscation proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA, required fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is, but also bring to a grinding halt, all pending investigation in the country. In fact, the order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Review Petition (Crl.) No.219 of 2022 discloses that prima facie the Court was of the view that at least two of the issues raised in the review petition require consideration. Though it is not precisely spelt out in the order, those two issues relate to (i) not providing the accused with a copy of the ECIR; and (ii) reversal of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence. The points that the respondents are canvasing in this case, have nothing to do with those two issues. Therefore, the accused cannot have a piggyback ride on the review petition. 117. In fact, as we have pointed out elsewhere, the accu....