Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.5 – Validity of – Held: s.5 is constitutionally valid – It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided by the Act.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.8(4) – Challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of s.8 – Held: Is rejected subject to s.8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the meaning assigned to it – Direction u/s.8(4) for taking possession of the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is passed merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment order, should be an exception and not a rule – That issue will have to be considered on case-to-case basis. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.17 – Challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.17 – Rejected – Held: There are stringent safeguards provided in s.17 and Rules framed thereunder – Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into s.17 after its amendment.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.18 – Challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.18 – Rejected – Held: Safeguards are provided in s.18 – Amended provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.19 – Challenge to the constitutional validity of s.19 – Rejected – Held: There are stringent safeguards provided in s.19 – The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.24 – Validity – Held: s.24 has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.44 – Proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of s.44 – Held: Is to be regarded as directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-tocase basis. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.44 – Challenge to – Held: No merit in the challenge to s.44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional – However, the eventualities referred to in this section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and by the Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation given. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45(1) – Release on bail – Twin conditions in s.45(1) – Held: Reasons which weighed with this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case for declaring the twin conditions in s.45(1), as it stood at the relevant time, as unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the statute book – It was open to the Parliament to cure the defect noted by this Court so as to revive the same provision in the existing form. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Validity – The provision in the form of s.45, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Applicability – Prayer for bail – Held: As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including those under s.438 CrPC or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of s.45 may apply – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Invocation of s.436A CrPC – Permissibility – Held: Beneficial provision of s.436A CrPC could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence punishable under the Act – CrPC – s.436A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.50 – Process envisaged by s.50 – Held: Is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not “investigation” in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.48 – Authorities under the Act (referred to in s.48) – Held: They are not police officers as such.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Statements recorded by Authorities under the Act – Held: They are not hit by Art.20(3) or Art.21 of the Constitution – Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 20(3) and 21.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.63 – Validity – Held: s.63 providing for punishment regarding false information or failure to give information does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Schedule to the Act – Inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence – Held: The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule to the Act is a matter of legislative policy –The nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.48 – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) – Held: ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under CrPC – ECIR is an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) – Fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in s.48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime – FIR. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) – Held: Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest – However, when the arrested person is produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to look into the relevant records presented by the authorised representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention in connection with the offence of moneylaundering. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Enforcement Directorate (ED) Manual – Held: Even when ED manual is not to be published being an internal departmental document issued for the guidance of the Authorities (ED officials), the department ought to explore the desirability of placing information on its website which may broadly outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries under the Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority and before the Special Court.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Vacancies in Appellate Tribunal – Executive to take corrective measures in this regard expeditiously.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Argument about proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of scheduled offence – Held: Is wholly unfounded. Answering issues regarding the validity and interpretation of the provisions of the 2002 Act, the Court

HELD:

(i) The question as to whether some of the amendments to the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could not have been enacted by the Parliament by way of a Finance Act has not been examined in this judgment. The same is left open for being examined along with or after the decision of the Larger Bench (seven Judges) of this Court in the case of Rojer Mathew.

(ii) The expression “proceedings” occurring in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act is contextual and is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the Special Court.

(iii) The expression “investigation” in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is interchangeable with the function of “inquiry” to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act.

(iv) The Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

(v) (a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word “and” preceding the expression projecting or claiming as “or”; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise.

(b) Independent of the above, the expression “and” occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as “or”, to give full play to the said provision so as to include “every” process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity.

(c) The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, that only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property that the offence of Section 3 would be complete, stands rejected.

(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of moneylaundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.

(vi) Section 5 of the 2002 Act is constitutionally valid. It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided by the 2002 Act. The procedural safeguards as delineated are effective measures to protect the interests of person concerned.

(vii) The challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 2002 Act is also rejected subject to Section 8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the meaning assigned to it.

(viii) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section

(1) of Section 17 of the 2002 Act stands rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 17 and Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into Section 17 after its amendment. The Central Government may take necessary corrective steps to obviate confusion caused in that regard.

(ix) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. There are similar safeguards provided in Section 18. The amended provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

(x) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section

19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

(xi) Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.

(xii) (a) The proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the 2002 Act is to be regarded as directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to-case basis.

(b) There is no merit in the challenge to Section 44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional. However, the eventualities referred to in this section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and by the Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation given.

(xiii) (a) The reasons which weighed with this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah for declaring the twin conditions in Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood at the relevant time, as unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the statute book; and it was open to the Parliament to cure the defect noted by this Court so as to revive the same provision in the existing form.

(b) This Court is unable to agree with the observations in Nikesh Tarachand Shah distinguishing the enunciation of the Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh; and other observations suggestive of doubting the perception of Parliament in regard to the seriousness of the offence of money-laundering, including about it posing serious threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

(c) The provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002 Act, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

(d) As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 may apply.

(xiv) The beneficial provision of Section 436A of the 1973 Code could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence punishable under the 2002 Act.

(xv) (a) The process envisaged by Section 50 of the 2002 Act is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not “investigation” in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities under the 2002 Act (referred to in Section 48), are not police officers as such.

(b) The statements recorded by the Authorities under the 2002 Act are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(xvi) Section 63 of the 2002 Act providing for punishment regarding false information or failure to give information does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness.

(xvii) The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule to the 2002 Act is a matter of legislative policy; and the nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder.

(xviii) (a) In view of special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the 1973 Code. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime.

(b) Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.

(c) However, when the arrested person is produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to look into the relevant records presented by the authorised representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention in connection with the offence of money-laundering.

(xix) Even when ED manual is not to be published being an internal departmental document issued for the guidance of the Authorities (ED officials), the department ought to explore the desirability of placing information on its website which may broadly outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries under the Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority and before the Special Court.

(xx)The petitioners are justified in expressing serious concern bordering on causing injustice owing to the vacancies in the Appellate Tribunal. It is deemed necessary to impress upon the executive to take corrective measures in this regard expeditiously.

(xxi) The argument about proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of scheduled offence is wholly unfounded and stands rejected.[Para 187][719-B-H; 720-A-H; 721-A-H; 722A-H; 723-A-C]

Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India & Anr. (2018)

11 SCC 1 : [2017] 12 SCR 358; Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Anr. (2016) 9 SCC 473; Court on its Own Motion v. State (2010) SCC OnLine Del 4309; In re, v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2021) 10 SCC 598; Nitya Dharmananda & Anr. v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy & Anr. (2018) 2 SCC 93 : [2017]

12 SCR 118; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 3 : [1974] 2 SCR 348; S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 703; K. P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulum & Anr. (1981)

4 SCC 173 : [1982] 1 SCR 629; Union of India & Anr. v. Martin Lottery Agencies Limited (2009) 12 SCC 209 : [2009] 7 SCR 946; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 : [2019] 12 SCR 172; State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram [1962] 3 SCR 338; Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 828 : [1964]

2 SCR 752; Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr. (1978)

2 SCC 424 : [1978] 3 SCR 608; Tahsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 : [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 875; V. K. Mishra & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2015) 9 SCC 588 : [2015] 8 SCR 1; Somasundaram alias Somu v. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (2020) 7 SCC 722; Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980)

4 SCC 600 : [1981] 1 SCR 175; Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 : [2010] 5 SCR 381; State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808 : [1962] 3 SCR 10; M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors. [1954] SCR 1077; Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Ramdev Tobacco Company (1991) 2 SCC 119 : [1991]

1 SCR 126; Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 : [1978] 2 SCR 371; Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 417 : [2008]

10 SCR 379; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979; Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409 : [2007] 12 SCR 1100; D. K. Basu v. State of W. B. (1997)

1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan & Anr. (1994) 3 SCC 440 : [1994] 1 SCR 445; Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1956 SC 479 : [1956] SCR 267; Collector of Malabar & Anr. v. Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee AIR 1957 SC 688 : [1957] SCR 970; G.J. Fernandes v. The State of Mysore & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1753 : [1967] 3 SCR 636; Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 615 : [1986] 3 SCR 518; Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 682 : [2014]

6 SCR 873; Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 728 : [1955] 1 SCR 707; Deep Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 8; Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010]

9 SCR 1039; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773; Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1989) 1 SCC 374 : [1988]

3 Suppl. SCR 967; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

3 SCC 713 : (2021) SCC Online SC 50; Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2021)

5 SCC 435; Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017] 9 SCR 797; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765; Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf (1976) 1 SCC

128 : [1976] 1 SCR 277; Satnam Singh & Ors. v. Punjab & Haryana High Court and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC

353 : [1997] 1 SCR 1038; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 637; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 427; Kiran Prakash Kulkarni v. The Enforcement Directorate and Anr. Order dated 11.4.2019 in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1698 of 2019; Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 1 : [2019]

16 SCR 1; Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor, (1924) SCC OnLine PC 49 : AIR 1925 PC 1; Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 298 : [1991] 3 SCR 812; Mahipal Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 282 : [2014] 4 SCR 529; Tech Mahindra Limited v. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad & Ors. [WP No. 17525/2014 decided on 22.12.2014 by High Court of Andhra Pradesh]; Gadi Nagavekata Satyanarayana v. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement (2017) SCC Online ATPMLA 2; Arun Kumar Mishra v. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) SCC OnLine Del 8658; M/s. Ajanta Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) SCC OnLine Del 8659; M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2016) SCC OnLine Del 475; Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737 : [2014] 11 SCR 1009 ; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 494 : [1979] 1 SCR 392; Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277 : [1983] 2 SCR 690; Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 : [2012] 8 SCR 295; Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 307 : [2010] 13 SCR 851; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 602 : [2008]

4 SCR 783; State of Maharashtra v. Chief Information Commissioner & Anr., (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 1199; Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1998)

1 SCC 226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595 ; Shashikant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC

630 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 474; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC

295 : [2013] 14 SCR 983; State of Jharkhand through SP, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav alias Lalu Prasad, (2017) 8 SCC 1 : [2017] 3 SCR 630; State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchandalia Baliay (1977)

4 SCC 308 : [1978] 1 SCR 535; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : [2011] 13 SCR 309; State of Kerela v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 : [2011] 1 SCR 590; Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [1969] 2 SCR 461 : AIR 1970 SC 940; Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600 : [1981] 1 SCR 175; Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah & Anr. v. D.K. Guha & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 696 : [1973] 3 SCR 438; Poolpandi & Ors. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. (1992)

3 SCC 259 : [1992] 3 SCR 247; State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251 : [1965]

2 SCR 457; Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128 : [1951] SCR 228; Ritesh Agarwal & Anr. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 205 : [2008] 8 SCR 553; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 4 SCC 441 : [2011] 5 SCR 691; Varinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 3 SCC 151 : [2014] 1 SCR 496; Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 SCC 1 : [2014] 12 SCR 1037; Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bank of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 389 : [1967] 1 SCR 848; Dattatraya Govind Mahajan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (1977) 2 SCC 548 : [1977] 2 SCR 790; S. Sundaram Pillai & Ors. v. V. R. Pattabiraman & Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 591 : [1985] 2 SCR 643; Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., (2002) 9 SCC 639; Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC

613 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 766; Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, ILR 2017 Kar 1846; Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) & Ors. (2017) 2 LW (Cri) 252; State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi & Anr. (1972) 2 SCC 890 : [1973]

1 SCR 1004; Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar v. Suresh Seth, (1981) 2 SCC 790 : [1981] 3 SCR 419; Smt. Maya Rani Punj (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1986) 1 SCC 445 : [1985] 3 Suppl. SCR 827; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1531 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 (para 59) : (1988) 2 SCC 602 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Directorate of Enforcement v. Surajpal & Ors. (2018) SCC OnLine Del 10472; Inspector of Police, CBI v. Assistant Directorate, Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) & Anr. (2019) SCC OnLine Ker 4546; Sou. Vijaya Alias Baby v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : [2003]

3 Suppl. SCR 340; State of Karnataka v. Madesha & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 35 : [2007] 8 SCR 757; In Re Kuttayan alias Nambi Thevar AIR 1960 Mad 9; Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 187 : [2008] 14 SCR 419; Rohitash Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 30 : [2012] 13 SCR 47; Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (2019) SCC Online Del 6428; Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) SCC Online P&H 738; A. Kamarunnisa Ghori v. The Chairperson, Prevention of Money Laundering, Union of India, 2012 (4) CTC 608 : 2012 Writ LR 719; Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1019 : [1963]

1 Suppl. SCR 912; G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 440; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 656 : [1974] 3 SCR 760; State of Manipur & Ors. v. Surajkumar Okram & Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 130; M.K. Ayoob & Ors. v. Superintendent, Customs Intelligence Unit, Cochin & Anr., 1984 Crl.L.J. 949; The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue, Madras v. M.K.S. Abu Bucker, 1990 Cri.L.J 704; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 500 : [1984] 2 SCR 914; Om Prakash & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 14 SCC 1 : [2011] 14 SCR 240; Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 190 : [1995] 3 SCR 905; Gorav Kathuria v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine P&H 3428 D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284; Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine SC 683; Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 200; Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Gupta and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 391-392/2018; Attorney General for India & Ors. v. Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 54 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay (1994) 6 SCC 86; The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 578 : [1961] 3 SCR 107; Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 375 : [1959]

1 Suppl. SCR 274; Hira H. Advani etc. v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 662; R. Dineshkumar alias Deena v. State represented by Inspector of Police & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 497 : [2015] 5 SCR 605; Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 707 : [1987] 2 SCR 1173; M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 299 : [1988] 2 SCR 962; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991) 2 Suppl. SCC 18 : [1990]

3 Suppl. SCR 365; Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons & Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 617 : [1991] 3 SCR 307; Forest Range Officer & Ors. v. P. Mohammed Ali & Ors., (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 627 : [1993] 3 SCR 497; Commercial Taxation Officer, Udaipur v. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC 124 : [2007] 1 SCR 855; Associated Indem Mechanical (P) Ltd. v. W.B. Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd., & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 607 : [2007] 1 SCR 174; N.D.P. Namboodripad (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 502 : [2007] 3 SCR 769; Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly & Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 728 : [2010] 5 SCR 927; Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries, Rajasthan v. Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Bhilwara, Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 87 : [2014] 2 SCR 589; Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 : [2017] 13 SCR 156; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : [1994] 2 SCR 375; R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 9 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 85; Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 221 : [2016] 3 SCR 865; Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC

410 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 263; Joint Directors of Mines Safety v. M/s Tandur and Nayandgi Stone Quarries (P) Ltd. (1987) 3 SCC 208 : [1987] 2 SCR 800; Regina v. Oakes 1959 (2) QB 350; Ishwar Singh Bindra & Ors. v. The State of U.P. [1969] 1 SCR 219; Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC

755 : [2008] 4 SCR 822; Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 551 : [2005]

1 SCR 1019; National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 438 : [2014] 5 SCR 119; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 436 : [2005] 1 SCR 494; Githa Hariharan & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 228 : [1999] 1 SCR 669; Rohtas v. State of Haryana & Anr. (1979) 4 SCC 229 : [1980] 1 SCR 151; Ajmer Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1987)

3 SCC 340 : [1987] 3 SCR 84; Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1988) 2 SCC 271 : [1988] 3 SCR 225; Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 735 : [1996]

3 Suppl. SCR 127; State (Union of India) v. Ram Saran (2003) 12 SCC 578 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 476; Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 1 : [2008] 14 SCR 889; Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India (2015) 16 SCC 1 : [2015] 15 SCR 499; Union of India & Ors. v. Chandra Bhushan Yadav (2020) 2 SCC 747; Aswini Kumar Ghose & Anr. v. Arabinda Bose & Anr. AIR 1952 SC 369 : [1953] SCR 1; Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 94 : [ 2009] 3 SCR 735; Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 274 : [2003]

5 Suppl. SCR 1; Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 407 : [2017] 8 SCR 33; Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi & Ors. [1963] 2 Suppl. SCR 812; The South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum & Anr. [1964] 4 SCR 280; Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. v. S.P. Kasture & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 565 : [1968]

1 SCR 661; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Seth & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 27 : [1985]

1 SCR 29; Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539 : [2011] 9 SCR 936; Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, (1985) 2 SCC 580 : [1985]

3 SCR 743; Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Sanjay Transport Agency & Anr., (2009) 7 SCC 345 : [2009]

9 SCR 690; Hari Narayan Rai v. Union of India & Anr. (2010) SCC OnLine Jhar 475; Karam Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) SCC OnLine P&H 19739; Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 9938; Vakamulla Chandrashekhar v. Enforcement Directorate & Anr. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 12810; Virbhadra Singh & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate & Anr. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 8930; Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors. vide order dated 01.12.2017 in W.P. (Crl.) No.2465/2017; Directorate of Enforcement v. Vakamulla Chandrashekhar Order dated 04.01.2018 in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 36918/2017; Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit v. Union of India & Anr., Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Anr. (2019)

5 SCC 266 : [2019] 5 SCR 91; K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin (1997) 3 SCC 721 : [1997] 1 SCR 797; Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate (2016) SCC OnLine Hyd 64; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited (2008) 9 SCC 622 : [2008] 12 SCR 179; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Shelly Products & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 461 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 79; Gurcharan Singh v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2008) 17 SCC 28; [2008] 5 SCR 856; Assistant Electrical Engineer v. Satyendra Rai & Anr. (2014) 4 SCC 513; State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan & Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 394 : [2018] 10 SCR 974; Union of India & Ors. v. Mudrika Singh (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1173; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014)

8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128; Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 305 : [2008] 14 SCR 179; Premium Granites & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 691 : [1994] 1 SCR 579; M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 31 : [1982] 2 SCR 31; Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 647 : [2005] 2 SCR 879; Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 33 : [ 2014] 7 SCR 569 ; A.K. Roy v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 271 : [1982] 2 SCR 272; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364 : [1987] 2 SCR 677; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439 : [2013]

3 SCR 547; Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466 : [2013] 3 SCR 493; State of Bihar & Anr. v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 503; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1958 SC

731 : [1959] SCR 629; Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar & Anr. [1958] SCR 1226; Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123: [1952] SCR 435; Kedar Nath Bajoria & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404 : [1954] SCR 30; Special Reference No.1 of 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380 : [1979] 2 SCR 476; Asbury Hospital v. Cass County

326 US 207 [1945]; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India & Ors. [1950] SCR 869; The State of Bombay & Anr. v. F.N. Balsara [1951] SCR 682; Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Limited & Ors. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr. (1992) 3 SCC 336; [1992]

3 SCR 409; Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 501 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 369; M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. & Ors. (1998)

8 SCC 227 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 632; State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 471 : [1978] 1 SCR 641; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 515 : [1984] 1 SCR 725; Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345; Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004)

3 SCC 549 : [2004] 2 SCR 1092; Supdt., Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy (2000) 9 SCC 549; Union of India v. Gurcharan Singh (2003) 11 SCC 764; Union of India v. Abdulla (2004) 13 SCC 504; Narcotics Control Bureau v. Karma Phuntsok & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 480; Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 242 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 381; N.R. Mon v. Mohd. Nasimuddin (2008) 6 SCC 721 : [2008] 8 SCR 1159; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 5 : [2008] 12 SCR 1083; Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul (2009) 2 SCC

624 : [2009] 1 SCR 533; The State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561 : [2012] 9 SCR 873; Union of India v. Niyazuddin Sk. & Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 738 : [2017] 6 SCR 513; Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 : [2018]

3 SCR 739; National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 : [2019]

5 SCR 1060; Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 165; Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas & Ors. v. The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 1742 : [1964] 2 SCR 608; Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 283 : [1970] 1 SCR 388; Bhubaneshwar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 77 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 639; Comorin Match Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N. (1996) 4 SCC 281 : [1996]

1 Suppl. SCR 349; Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 637; Bakhtawar Trust & Ors. v. M.D. Narayan & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 298 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Narain Singh (2009) 13 SCC 165 : [2009] 10 SCR 821; Goa Foundation & Anr. v. State of Goa & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 602 : [2016] 1 SCR 1025; Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana & Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 283 : [2016] 7 SCR 689; Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay [1955] 1 SCR 613; M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [1958] SCR 1422; Jagannath, Etc. Etc. v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms & Ors. Etc. (1971) 2 SCC 893 : [1972] 1 SCR 105; Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1 : [2020]

2 SCR 1; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929; Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 453 : [2014] 1 SCR 465; Mohammed Dastagir v. The State of Madras AIR 1960 SC 756 : [1960] 3 SCR 116; Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 9 : [1961] 3 SCR 592; K. Joseph Augusthi v. M.A. Narayanan AIR 1964 SC 1552 : [1964] SCR 137; Collector of Customs, Madras v. Kotumal Bhirumal Pihlajani & Ors. (1966) SCC OnLine Mad 145; Laxman Padma Bhagat v. The State (1964) SCC OnLine Bom 59; Calcutta Motor Cycle Co. v. Collector of Customs & Ors. (1955) SCC OnLine Cal 275; Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1972) 3 SCC 775; C. Sampath Kumar v. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Madras (1997) 8 SCC 358 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 142; Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119 : [1966] 1 SCR 134; Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 : [1998]

1 SCR 1153; Badaku Joti Svant v. State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1746 : [1966] 3 SCR 698; Illias v. The Collector of Customs, Madras AIR 1970 SC 1065; State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad (1975) 3 SCC 210 : [1975]

1 SCR 881; Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. AIR 1959 SC 763 : [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 459; Lajpat Rai Sehgal & Ors. v. State 1983 (5) DRJ 1 : 23 (1983) DLT 314; Narain Singh v. The State 1986 (10) DRJ 109 : 30 (1986) DLT 118; Pareena Swarup v. Union of India (2008) 14 SCC 107 : [2008] 13 SCR 1217; Baleshwar Rai & Ors. v. The State of Bihar [1963] 2 SCR 433; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2019) 16 SCC 547 : [2019] 6 SCR 701; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699 : [2004] 3 SCR 1148; Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 : [2001] 3 SCR 900; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC

54 : [2008] 1 SCR 605; Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375 : [2001] 2 SCR 644; P.N. Krishna Lal & Ors. v. Govt. of Kerala & Anr. (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 187 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 526; Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120; Seema Silk & Sarees & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 580 : [2008]

8 SCR 201; Transport Co. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 486 : [1986] 1 SCR 939; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4 : [1979] 2 SCR 229; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 : [2002] 1 SCR 75; Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 : [2008]

6 SCR 1116; P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2010)

2 SCC 398 : [2010] 2 SCR 78; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : [2010]

11 SCR 669; Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 11 SCC 476 : [2012]

10 SCR 1034; Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 665 : [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 472; State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, AIR 1958 SC 61; M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 584; Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. (2021) 7 SCC 369; Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SCC 394; Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222 : [2015] 5 SCR 435; Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 141 : [1991] 1 SCR 396; Gunwantlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194 : [1973] 1 SCR 508; H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi [1955] 1 SCR 1150; Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC

195 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 307; Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 314 : [2012] 8 SCR 993; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 561 : [1982] 3 SCR 121; Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : [1980]

3 SCR 383; Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175 : [2003]

3 SCR 485; Pooran Mal v. The Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 345 : [1974] 2 SCR 704; R.S. Seth Gopikrishan Agarwal v. R.N. Sen, Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors. [1967]

2 SCR 340; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 : [1999] 3 SCR 977; Special Investigation Circle-B, Meerut v. Messrs Seth Brothers & Ors. Etc. (1969) 2 SCC 324 : [1970] 1 SCR 601; Dr. Partap Singh & Anr. v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 72 : [1985] 3 SCR 969; Union of India & Anr. v. Purushottam (2015) 3 SCC 779 : [2015] 1 SCR 849; Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. v. Solanki Traders (2008) 2 SCC 302 : [2007] 12 SCR 409; Radha Mohan Lakhotia, Indian National and Citizen v. Deputy Director, PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (2010) SCC OnLine Bom 1116; B. Rama Raju v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) SCC OnLine AP 152; Alive Hospitality and Food Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) SCC OnLine Guj 3909; K. Sowbaghya v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Kar 282; Usha Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) SCC OnLine Sikk 146; J. Sekar v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) SCC OnLine Del 6523; Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC 91 : [1979] 2 SCR 717; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 : [1999] 1 SCR 117; State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 382 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 712; Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404 : [1956] SCR 199; State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation) v. Kalyan Singh (Former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) & Ors. (2017) 7 SCC 444 : [2017] 6 SCR 946; Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 1; The Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2022, decided on 4.1.2022; State rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : [2011] 8 SCR 725; P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) SCC OnLine Del 9703; Hussainara Khatoon & Ors.v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98 : [1979] 3 SCR 532; Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 386 – referred to.

Thakurain Balraj Kunwar & Anr. v. Rae Jagatpal Singh (1904) SCC OnLine PC 9 : (1904) 1 All LJ 384; Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors. AIR 1953 SC 148 : [1953] SCR 533; Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., Nagpur (1970) 2 SCC 23 : [1971] 1 SCR 422; Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 468 : [1979] 2 SCR 148; Tara Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 179 : [1980]

3 SCR 1042; Sakshi v. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 518 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 723; Guntaiah & Ors. v. Hambamma & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 228 : [2005]

1 Suppl. SCR 770; C. Gupta v. Glaxo-Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 171 : [2007]

7 SCR 800; D.R. Fraser & Co. Ltd. v. The Minister of National Revenue (1948) SCC OnLine PC 65 : AIR 1949 PC 120; Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) SCC OnLine SC 882; Ashok Munilal Jain & Anr. v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (2018)

16 SCC 158; Divisional Forest Officer & Anr. v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 573 : [1985]

3 Suppl. SCR 680; Biswanath Bhattacharya v. Union of India and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 392 : [2014]

1 SCR 885; and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 183 : [2015]

14 SCR 1037 – held inapplicable.

Attygalle & Anr. v. The King AIR 1936 PC 169; United States v. Anthony Salerno 107 S.Ct. 2095 (1987); United States of America v. Renee Armstrong Sanders, 929 F.2d 1466 (10th Cir. 1991); United States of America v. Paul Johnson, 440 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2006); United States of America v Roger Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2010); The Impact of Cuellar on Concealment Money Laundering Case Law, 18 J Bus L 255 (2015); Regina v. Cuthbertson & Ors. [1981] A.C. 470; Elizabeth Warburton v. James Loveland (1831) 2 Dow & Cl 480; Bell, Attorney General v. Wolfish Schall v. Martin 467 US 253 (1984); Gifford v. Kelson (1943)

51 Man. R 120; R v. Ahmad, [2012] 2 All ER 1137; R v. James, [2012] 2 Cr App R (S) 253; Samuels v. McCurdy, Sheriff (1925) SCC OnLine US SC 42; Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Henry A. Tranbarger 238 U.S. 67; Seaford Court Estates Ld. v. Asher [1949] 2 K.B. 481; The Georgia Railroad and Banking Company v. James M. Smith 128 US 174 (1888); and Commissioner of Stamp Duties v. Atwill & Ors. (1973) 1 All ER 576; Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886) – referred to.