New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ripped into the enforcement directorate for the resolution of the prevention of money laundering law through a decrease in hat prayer from the tight provisions to put the people behind bars and warn that non-simultaneous abuse would make the law lose its relevance.
The additional lawyer General SV Raju faces an explosion on the edges of the bench consisting of the chairman of the Ramana NV judge, as Bopanna and Hya Kohli in two cases – one related to the CBI appeal against anticipatory guarantee to Neeraj Patel by Telangana High Court in a case listed Under the prevention of the Corruption Court and as a sequel to the CBI case, Ed monoked the provisions of PMLA against it; Others Related to Usha Martin Ltd challenged the command Jharkhand HC refused to provide assistance to its requests for calls issued by ED.
Bench told Ed that the resort indiscriminately to the PMLA Law, even for mild violations involving the trivial amount, giving the impression that the agency wants to use harsh laws, enacted for certain purposes to catch large fish, as a weapon against all and the setback is accused commit a violation involving any amount.
Cji Ramana said, “You thin the action by asking for the provisions of the PMLA not parahin”.
Cji said it was not only in these two cases but it was a general experience of the peak court.
“It’s not just this case.
If you start using it as a weapon against someone who is accused of in case involving Rs 10,000 or Rs 100, what will happen? You can’t put everyone behind the bar.
You have to use it fairly.” What may be intentional by the court is part 45 of the PMLA law, which makes it difficult for the court to guarantee the guarantee / anticipation to accuse that the anti-money laundering law is slapped in the person.
Part 4 says violations under PMLA must be treated as a secret and cannot be addressed.
Section 45 (1) provides – “Regardless of whatever contained in the criminal procedure code, 1973, no one accused of committing a violation that can be punished because the prison period of more than three years below the schedule will be released on a guarantee or lights up its own bond except : (i) The Public Prosecutor’s Office has been given the opportunity to oppose the application for the release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable reason for him innocence because of such a violation and that he won’t do it Temporary violations on guarantees.
“Raju’s efforts to justify PMLA’s prayer in two given cases did not produce fruit.
Even a judge who was generally calm at Justice Bopanna said, “If you start not in a normal view of using PMLA, then the action will lose its relevance”.
CJI equipped with saying, “If you want to put PMLA fees against being accused of every case, it won’t work.
This is not the way the law is intended to work.” However, the bench issued a notification to Patel on the CBI appeal against anticipatory hibing.
In the petition submitted by Usha Martin, despite the opposition from ED, the bench ordered temporary protection from the arrest to the applicant and also remained operating operations calling a special judge on May 20, 2021 in the CI-Cumla case.