The Supreme Court is hearing the review petitions filed against the 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case which upheld the various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) relating to arrest, search & seizure, reverse burden of proof, non-supply of ECIR copy etc.A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh has decided to...
The Supreme Court is hearing the review petitions filed against the 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case which upheld the various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) relating to arrest, search & seizure, reverse burden of proof, non-supply of ECIR copy etc.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice NK Singh has decided to hear the preliminary objections raised by the Enforcement Directorate and the Union to the maintainability of the review petitions.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju is appearing for the Union.
Follow this page for the live updates.
ASG taking the Court through the grounds of review
ASG: These can't be grounds for review. No parameter fulfilled. This is an appeal in disguise. Another point - original case was a transfer case related to quashing
Court begins to rise.
ASG explains why trials are getting delayed
ASG: battery of lawyers appear...applications filed one after the other...poor IO, instead of investigation, has to run around...
Court reiterates its earlier view that there should be fast-track, special courts.
ASG: Investigators are terribly handicapped
J Bhuyan: You can't act like a crook, you have to act within 4 corners of law. I observed in one court proceedings, you have registered about 5000 ECIRs. Conviction is less than 10...That's why we insist improve your investigation, witnesses...we are talking about liberty of people. We are concerned about ED's image also. At the end of 5-6 years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this
ASG: There are very few acquittals...in case of influential people...
ASG: FIR is not necessary even for anticipatory bail. It's a statutory document. ECIR is not a statutory document, nothing turns on this. There's nothing like an ECIR. The idea behind wanting ECIR is to find out what material is there with the agency.
ASG: ECIR is an internal document. I can investigate without ECIR. There's no compulsion to register
J Singh: Grounds of arrest can contain more details than ECIR?
ASG: Yes. To have safeguard, we are not disclosing
J Kant: If the Court says you will communicate grounds of arrest as soon as you arrest...I said in one of my judgments that if investigation has been completed without arrest, then S.19(1) can't be invoked.
J Kant: Someone can argue that look at stage where there's no initiation of criminal process (in predicate offense and under PMLA)...even then copy is supplied for action having civil consequences. Then is it something beyond the scheme of the statute that such procedure is contemplated also when criminal process is initiated? It is not mandatory of filing a statutory complaint for arresting a person. Suppose you have arrested, complaint is yet to be filed. You'll disclose documents when you file complaint. Suppose wants to challenge arrest, seek bail, how will someone know what grounds have been taken against him?
ASG: This court has passed judgments now. We have to give grounds and reasons of arrest, and at time of remand, all material is placed before court.
J Bhuyan: How do you explain this - the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offense has not been recorded does not come in the way of the authorities referred in S.48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action
ASG: For criminal action, there has to be predicate offense
J Kant: Suppose only some complaint has been made, there's order of pre-emptory attachment. No FIR or ECIR. Do you supply copy of attachment order?
ASG: Yes.
ASG: They're asking this Court to re-write the VMC judgment, which is not permissible. Review can't be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. Many accused are asking HCs and this Court to keep cases pending saying review on PMLA provisions is pending.
ASG: Review can't be there for the asking. A strong case has to be made out. [Citing a judgment] 'review can't be to substitute a view'. Error apparent means error which is discernible on mere looking at the record without detailed analysis.
ASG takes the Court through his note
J Singh: If one view is weightier than the other...then?
ASG: That also can't be ground for review, otherwise there will be review petitions at the drop of a hat. There will be no finality. Error apparent has to be a glaring, patent error.