Criminal Law

Subscribe to Criminal Law via RSS
Search by Criminal Law
When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible

OVERVIEW

A criminal trial is nearing its conclusion. The evidence has been led, and witnesses examined and cross examined. Only the final arguments remain. Yet, for “the pursuit of truth”, would a “further investigation” be permissible at such a belated stage? In several judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative, subject to there being compelling facts justifying such an extraordinary measure.Continue Reading When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible

Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating: Decoding the Confusion

Introduction

Offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust are often invoked in Indian criminal law system. It is common practice that when a First Information Report (“FIR”) is registered under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (Section 316 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)) for criminal breach of trust, the same is also registered under Section 420 of IPC (Section 318 of BNS) for cheating. This practice is on account of a long-drawn confusion between the two offences, wherein the two are often equated and thus understood as offences with similar ingredients.Continue Reading Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating: Decoding the Confusion

Out on bail: Do not disturb?

OVERVIEW

A live location on your mobile phone, gets you a cab and instant food/grocery delivery, among myriad other things. On occasion, a live location could also get you bail!This is seen from several recent judicial orders including some passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well.Continue Reading Out on bail: Do not disturb?

Summoning additional accused in criminal trial: When, why and how

OVERVIEW

Can a person who is neither named in the first information report (“FIR”) nor mentioned in the chargesheet, be summoned by a trial court later to face trial as an accused in respect of the very same FIR and chargesheet? If so, what would be the threshold and under what circumstances can such power be exercised?Continue Reading Summoning additional accused in criminal trial: When, why and how

Tarsem Lal v Directorate of Enforcement: Supreme Court further clarifies PMLA framework

OVERVIEW:

Through a series of recent judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined limits to the Directorate of Enforcement’s (“ED”) powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Resultantly, issues that were rather ambiguous are now a lot clearer.Continue Reading Tarsem Lal v Directorate of Enforcement: Supreme Court further clarifies PMLA framework

ED cannot arrest accused once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under PMLA: Supreme Court

Introduction:

In Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office,[1] the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court (“SC”) held on (i) the Enforcement Directorate’s (“ED”) powers of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002[2] (“PMLA”), once cognizance is taken of a PMLA complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA,[3] and (ii) the applicability of the twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA[4] in instances where the accused has furnished a bond in accordance with Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[5] (“CrPC”), for appearance in court following summons. In this significant decision, the SC essentially addresses the extent of the ED’s powers of arrest and applicability of the stringent twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA once the Special Court has taken cognizance of a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA.Continue Reading ED cannot arrest accused once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under PMLA: Supreme Court

Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web

OVERVIEW

The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC “),titled “Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours”, provides that an accused shall be entitled to “default bail” if the investigation is not complete within 60 (sixty) or 90 (ninety) days – depending on the prescribed punishment for the offence. However, if a chargesheet is filed in this duration, then default bail cannot be granted.Continue Reading Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web

Fraud-Related Disputes Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

Arbitrability of a dispute is a key factor in any arbitration, as it establishes the jurisdictional reach of an arbitral tribunal. In Booze Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.,[1] the Supreme Court stated that the disputes dealing with rights in personam are arbitrable, but those pertaining to rights in rem are not as they can affect the public.Continue Reading Fraud-Related Disputes Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

Sita Soren vs. Union of India: The Interplay between Anti-Corruption Laws and Legislative Immunity

In the recent landmark ruling of Sita Soren vs. Union of India,[1] a constitution bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on, inter alia, the liability of a Member of Parliament with respect to bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PCA”), and the legislative immunity granted by the Constitution under Articles 105 and 194. This judgement overruled a long-standing position of law, laid down in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE ), which dealt with a Member of Parliament’s immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery in a criminal court.[2] This article analyses the position of anti-corruption provisions and its impact in view of the observations in Sita Soren.Continue Reading Sita Soren vs. Union of India: The Interplay between Anti-Corruption Laws and Legislative Immunity

Arrests under PMLA: Arrest first, reasons to follow?

INTRODUCTION

Vide order dated March 20, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rejected a petition[1] preferred by the Union of India, seeking a review of the judgement passed in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India[2](“Pankaj Bansal”), wherein it was held that it was mandatory for the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to provide written ‘reasons for arrest’ to a person arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).Continue Reading Arrests under PMLA: Arrest first, reasons to follow?