Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2010 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 1064 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - violates the fundamental right under Article 20 (1) - In substance, the argument is that the money alleged to have been acquired will not fall within the definition of "proceeds of crime" because the acts leading to its generation were not among the offences listed in the Schedule, as it stood on the date when those acts were committed. The argument is misconceived. It has also been argued that the detention of the petitioner is illegal. This argument is based upon the allegation that the grounds for detention were not communicated as required by Section 19. There is only a prayer for quashing the judicial remand order dated 13.10.2009. HELD THAT:- A perusal of that remand order shows that no such ground was taken before the Court below at the time when the petitioner was being remanded for detention by a judicial order of the Court below. Being a Pure question of fact, not raised before the Court below, this cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, there is a denial of this fact in the counter affidavit making it a disputed question of fact. Most important of all, after the remand dated 13.10.2009 there would have been several other judicial remand orders which are not under challenge. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the remand order dated 13.10.2009 is redundant. I do not consider it appropriate to go into the greater details as it might embarrass the trial. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not being prosecuted merely for any act which was not a scheduled offence on the date when it was committed. Therefore, the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 20 (1) is not being violated.
|