Mahesh Kumar
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday (August 7), directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to focus on the quality of prosecution and evidence, citing the low conviction rate in money laundering cases.
Referring to a government statement made in Parliament, a three-judge bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan advised the ED to conduct more scientific investigations to improve the conviction rate, news agency PTI reported.
MoS Home Nityanand Rai on Tuesday, in a written reply to a question by the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi, informed the Lok Sabha that out of 5,297 cases filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since 2014, only 40 have ended in convictions, while 3 have ended in acquittals.
The apex court was hearing a bail plea filed by a Chhattisgarh-based businessman who had been arrested in connection with a money laundering case involving an illegal levy on coal transportation.
The bench said, "You need to concentrate on the quality of prosecution and evidence. All the cases where you are satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, you need to establish those cases in the court,” PTI reported.
“In this case, you are harping on the statements given by some witnesses, affidavits. This kind of oral evidence... this type of oral evidence, tomorrow, God knows that person will stand by it or not. You should do some scientific investigation," the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED.
Raju submitted that, unlike statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements given under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are considered evidence.
At this point, Justice Datta remarked that section 19 of the PMLA requires the arresting officer to provide "reasons to believe" to the accused and inquired whether the Additional Solicitor General believed the arresting order was sustainable in the present case.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, stated that in the case involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court had ruled that "reasons to believe," in addition to the grounds for arrest, must be provided to the accused. Rohatgi argued that according to the Supreme Court's judgment, there must also be a necessity for the arrest.
Referring to a government statement made in Parliament, a three-judge bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan advised the ED to conduct more scientific investigations to improve the conviction rate, news agency PTI reported.
MoS Home Nityanand Rai on Tuesday, in a written reply to a question by the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi, informed the Lok Sabha that out of 5,297 cases filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since 2014, only 40 have ended in convictions, while 3 have ended in acquittals.
The apex court was hearing a bail plea filed by a Chhattisgarh-based businessman who had been arrested in connection with a money laundering case involving an illegal levy on coal transportation.
The bench said, "You need to concentrate on the quality of prosecution and evidence. All the cases where you are satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, you need to establish those cases in the court,” PTI reported.
“In this case, you are harping on the statements given by some witnesses, affidavits. This kind of oral evidence... this type of oral evidence, tomorrow, God knows that person will stand by it or not. You should do some scientific investigation," the bench told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED.
Raju submitted that, unlike statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements given under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are considered evidence.
At this point, Justice Datta remarked that section 19 of the PMLA requires the arresting officer to provide "reasons to believe" to the accused and inquired whether the Additional Solicitor General believed the arresting order was sustainable in the present case.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, stated that in the case involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court had ruled that "reasons to believe," in addition to the grounds for arrest, must be provided to the accused. Rohatgi argued that according to the Supreme Court's judgment, there must also be a necessity for the arrest.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment