//
archives

Foreign Exchange Management Act

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Whether the State Government had no jurisdiction to authorise the Special Judge to try these cases under FERA. on transfer from Magistrate court by way of Notification ? =Section 62 of FERA made the offence under Section 56 non-cognizable. Besides, Section 61 (1) of FERA stated that ‘it shall be lawful’ for the Magistrate to pass the necessary sentence under Section 56. It does not state that the Magistrate alone is empowered to pass the necessary sentence, in which case the proceeding cannot be transferred from his Court. = The error in A.S. Impex was correctly understood by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mahender Singh v. High Court of Delhi, (2009) 151 Comp Cas 485 (Delhi) and in N.G. Sheth v. C.B.I., 151 (2008) DLT 89. The Division Bench in both cases took a view different from that in A.S. Impex. However, both decisions having been rendered by Division Benches, A.S. Impex, could not be overruled. Therefore, I complete the formality and overrule A.S. Impex since it does not lay down the correct law in this regard. For the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the objections raised by the petitioners. The High Court has looked into Section 407 of Cr.P.C., referred to Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India, and thereafter in its impugned judgment has observed as follows:- “Having perused Section 407 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 and 235, I have no hesitation to hold that this Court either in the administration side or in the judicial side has absolute jurisdiction to transfer any criminal cases pending before one competent Court to be heard and decided by another Court within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in its administrative power can issue direction that cases of particular nature shall be heard by particular court having jurisdiction.” For the reasons above mentioned, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40834 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Nos. 6219-6220 OF 2012 Kamlesh Kumar & Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. … Respondents     J U D G E M E N T H.L. GOKHALE, J These Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) seek … Continue reading

Bail: Allegations against respondent no.1 that he had huge amount of unaccounted money, that documents recovered from his premises contained instructions issued by him for transfer of various amounts to different persons from the bank accounts held by him outside India and the said monies were the proceeds of crime and by depositing the same in his bank accounts, respondent no.1 had attempted to project the same as untainted money – Further allegation that the said amount ran into billions of dollars; that respondent no.1 had obtained at least three passports in his name by submitting false documents, making false statements and by suppressing the fact that he already had a passport; that Income Tax Department had for the Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2007-08 assessed his total income as Rs.110,412,68,85303/- – Investigations also revealed that he sold a diamond from the collection of Nizam of Hyderabad and routed the proceeds through his account in Bank in Switzerland to a Bank in United Kingdom – High Court allowed bail application of respondent no.1 – On appeal, held: There was no attempt on part of respondent no.1 to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him – The allegations may not ultimately be established, but the burden of proof that the said monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not tainted shifted to respondent no.1 u/s.24 of PML Act – The amount lying in the Swiss bank was not explained by respondent no.1 – He was also not able to establish that the sum of Rs.110,412,68,85303/- were neither proceeds of crime nor tainted property – Manner in which he procured three different passports in his name after his original passport was directed to be deposited in court also lend support to apprehension that if released on bail, he may abscond – Bail granted to Respondent no.1 cancelled – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.4 – FEMA – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. Bail – Application for cancellation of bail, and appeal against order granting bail – Distinction between. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 – relied on. Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263; Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453: 2001 (2) SCR 878 – referred to. Case Law Reference: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 referred to Para 17 2001 (2) SCR 878 referred to Para 17 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 relied on Para 27 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1883 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.8.2011 of the High Court of Bombay i Criminal Bail Appliction No. 994 of 2011. A. Mariarputham, Rajiv Nanda, Revati Mohite, T.A. Khan, Anirudh Sharma, Anando Mukherjee, Harsh Parekh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. Ishwari Prasad A. Bagaria, Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Santosh Paul, Uma Ishwari Bagaria, Arti Singh, Arvind Gupta, Mohita Bagati, Kamal Nijhawan and Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6114 OF 2011) Union of India … Appellant Vs. Hassan Ali Khan & Anr. … Respondents O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Special Leave Petition out of which this … Continue reading

Hassan Ali Khan black money = The allegation against the Respondent No.1 and the other accused is that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as `the PML Act’=the distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and an appeal preferred against an order granting bail. The two stand on different footings. While the ground for cancellation of bail would relate to post-bail incidents, indicating misuse of the said privilege, an appeal against an order granting bail would question the very legality of the order passed. This difference was explained by this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21].

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6114 OF 2011) Union of India … Appellant Vs. Hassan Ali Khan & Anr. … Respondents O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Special Leave Petition out of which this … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,327 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com