Courts Update SC issues notice in Plea challenging Section 44(1) (a)...

SC issues notice in Plea challenging Section 44(1) (a) and 44 (1) (c) of PMLA


New Delhi, May 2 (ILNS): The Supreme Court recently issued Notice in a Plea challenging the constitution validity of Section 44 (1) (a) and Section 44 (1) (c) of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
A divisional bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Aniruddha Bose has sought the Centre’s response while tagging the matter with the other similarly paced matter pending before the Apex Court.

The petition has been filled by employees of Standard Chartered Bank who left the said bank in 2020 and 2014 respectively alleging that the Special Court under PMLA cannot try offences triable by Courts designated under the Criminal Code of Procedure.
The plea stated that after 9 months from the date of their resignation a complaint was filed by Hassad to lodge an FIR under section 420 read with 120B Of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners and others, alleging that the petitioners has induced him to purchase shares held by SCPE in company.
It has been alleged by the Petitioner that Section 44 (1) (a) deprives a person accused only of the scheduled offences, but not under section 4 of the PMLA of the following :-
The right to be tried by a Magistrate – First Class in accordance with the procedure established by law and enacted by Parliament i.e. the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The right of a First Appeal to the Sessions Court from the final judgment of the Magistrate u/s 374(3).
The right of Revision to the High Court u/s 401 Cr. P.C, from an appellate judgment of the Sessions Court u/s 374(3).
Accordingly, an accused pcrson’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by Section 44(1)(a) PMLA.
Thc non-obstante clause in Section 44(1)(a) of the Act does not override the provisions in various special statutes pertaining to the exclusive power of special judges/special courts to try offences under those statutes.

Whereas, In regards to Section 44 (1) (c) it has been alleged by the Petitioner that the discretion of the authority as to in which case such an application must be made is unfettered and not subjected to any rational criteria. The discretion, therefore, is to be exercised without any guidelines thereby violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The divisional bench while issuing notice in the Matter, listed the matter for further hearing along with other similarly placed matter. (ILNS)GM/MN


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

In the age of social media, desecration of the reputation of a public figure has become child’s play. Delhi HC directs Saket Gokhale to...

New Delhi, July 13 (ILNS): The Delhi High Court today directed journalist Saket Gokhale to take down...

PIL in SC seeks stringent rules for rash drivers

New Delhi, Jul 13 (ILNS)A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court, seeking directions...

Can’t drink muddy and contaminated water, even if it is free, says plea in Delhi HC.

New Delhi, Jul 13 (ILNS)The Delhi High Court today asked the Delhi Government to treat the plea...

Sikkim HC directs state govt to strengthen infrastructure for third wave of Pandemic

Sikkim, Jul 13 (ILNS)The Sikkim High Court while hearing its Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation recently, for...

NGT directs DJB to pay Rs Five Lakh per month to CPCB till they control bad odour from Sewage Treatment Plant

New Delhi, Jul 13 (ILNS) The National Green Tribunal today directed the Delhi Jal Board to pay...

Delhi HC directs journalist Saket Gokhale and Twitter to remove defamatory tweets against former Indian diplomat Lakshmi Puri

New Delhi, July 13 (ILNS): The Delhi High Court today directed journalist Saket Gokhale to take down...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you