The high court in its order had dismissed proceedings initiated against the first accused noting that he died during the pendency of the petitions and quashed the prosecution instituted against the second accused pending before Principal Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The ASG said the observation of the high court is contrary to the very definition of "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act.Īs per this definition, "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country. An apex court bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and C T Ravikumar in its October 8 order issued notice to the accused on the appeal of the ED and sought their response within four weeks.Īdditional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for ED, submitted that the high court has committed manifest error in observing that action under the PMLA cannot proceed in respect of ancestral property of the writ petitioners.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |