- The Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") in Najmunisha vs. State of Gujarat1 has held that search and seizure powers of officers under Section 41(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") do not violate the fundamental right of an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court observed that the provision stands regulated by reasonable restrictions within the provision itself.
- The Supreme Court in IBBI vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu2 held that a sessions judge acting as a Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013 has the power to issue process for criminal offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") punishable by less than 2 (two) years of imprisonment. The Supreme court rejected the contention of the accused that a Magistrate would be the appropriate court on the reasoning that Section 236 of the IBC had 'incorporated by legislation' Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 as it stood in 2016, which provision gave sessions judge such jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal vs. Enforcement Directorate3 has held that the ED is powerless to arrest an accused once the Special PMLA Court has taken cognizance of the ED's complaint if the ED has not arrested such accused till such taking of cognizance. The Supreme Court also held that if an accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to a summons, he need not apply for bail, since he is not to be treated as if he is in custody. The court deprecated the practice of Special Courts requiring the accused to seek bail after cognizance has been taken and the accused has appeared upon being summoned by the court.
- The Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4 invalidated the arrest of NewsClick editor Mr. Purkayastha on the ground that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest at the time of arrest or remand. The Supreme Court held that its decision in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India5, which mandated intimation of grounds of arrest to the accused in the context of the PMLA, equally applied to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Supreme Court further distinguished between 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds for arrest', observing that an arrest memo with pre-typed 'reasons for arrest' is not per se intimation of grounds of arrest. 'Grounds of arrest' would be personal to the accused and furnish to him the basic facts which may allow him an opportunity to defend himself or seek bail.
- The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Enforcement Directorate6 has held that political parties are within the scope of Section 70 of the PMLA, which makes every person in charge of and responsible to such a party liable for the offence of money laundering. The court reasoned that Section 70 of the PMLA includes an association of individuals such as a political party registered under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The observation was made while upholding the legality of arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Mr. Kejriwal. The decision is important since it opens up new jurisprudence by extending vicarious liability, a concept known typically in corporate criminal law, to political parties.
- A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has held in Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak vs. State of Maharashtra7 that despite the IT Act being special legislation having overriding effect, offences under the IPC may still be attracted if ingredients of the IPC offences are not otherwise covered. In particular, it observed that Sections 43 read with 66 of the IT Act may not cover the ingredient of 'deceiving' present only in the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC. Similarly, Section 72 of the IT Act that punishes breach of confidentiality or privacy may not cover the ingredients of securing access dishonestly or for personal gain that are present in the IPC offences of misappropriation and breach of trust.
- The Karnataka High Court in Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit vs. Income Tax Department8 quashed the offence under Section 50 of the Black Money Act, 2015 on the ground that the Act came into force in 2015 and would not retrospectively apply to the offence of non-disclosure of income / assets held outside India that took place prior to 2015.
Footnotes
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 520
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 560
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 971
4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934
5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244
6 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2685
7 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1074
8 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 58
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.