JUDGEMENT OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE TITLED “GAUTAM KUNDU VS. MANOJ KUMAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EASTERN REGION, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT) GOVT. OF INDIA, (2015) 12 SC CK 0030” CONCERNING OFFENCES UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT

 

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) Govt. of India, (2015) 12 SC CK 0030

PARA NO. 30

30. The conditions specified Under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory and needs to be complied with which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of the PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of the PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made Under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the Authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the Appellant.