Summary: Commonly (mis)understood to be only a power of quashing, Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) is much broader in ambit. The Section recognises the inherent jurisdiction High Courts in India have in dealing with criminal matters, including the power to prevent abuse of process of “any court” or pass orders to “secure the ends of justice”.Continue Reading Alternate remedy no bar to High Courts exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court
Summary: In this article, we discuss the concept of cancellation of bail in the backdrop of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court that trial courts are empowered to cancel bail granted by higher courts if bail conditions are violated.Continue Reading Breaking the Hierarchy – Power of the Trial Courts to Cancel Bail Granted by Higher Courts
A recent decision rendered by the Madras High Court in S. Srinivasan v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai[1], has held that being in possession of the proceeds of crime and claiming it to be untainted property can independently be perceived as money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).
Although the said decision is in line with the principles previously enunciated by various courts while interpreting the PMLA provisions, such a simple interpretation may possibly lead to unintended situations. The primary reason being that anyone who is merely in possession of proceeds of crime without any genuine knowledge or any involvement therein can be prosecuted under PMLA. This perspective may prove to be counterproductive to the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.Continue Reading Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?
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
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,[1]adjudicated inter alia upon whether the court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can order the automatic vacation of all interim/ stay orders of the High Court in civil and criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period. Continue Reading Supreme Court overrules ‘Asian Resurfacing’ judgment: No automatic vacation of stay orders passed by High Courts
On January 16, 2024, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the case of Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.,[1] (“Chandrababu Naidu Case”) wherein the pertinent question of law was relating to the interpretation of the scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). The provision provides for a requirement of taking a prior approval of an appropriate authority before initiating any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act. Since the alleged offences in the instant case were committed prior to July 26, 2018 – the date on which Section 17A was incorporated vide the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018, the issues identified by the Supreme Court relate to the interpretation and ambit of the following legal questions:Continue Reading Decoding Section 17A of the PC Act: A Substantive Safeguard or a Tool for Procedural Hindrance?