It is trite to refer to tenets laid down in Palermo and Vienna Conventions. There has been a consensus, acquisition-possession-use-concealing or disguising illicit origin of illegitimately obtained money to evade legal consequences would be money-laundering. However, growth of jurisprudence in this law did not stop or end…   

_____

We hold, Section 24 of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 has a reasonable nexus with purposes and objects sought to be achieved.

Our attention is invited to several other statutes providing for shifting of burden of proof, constitutional validity of which has been upheld by this Court from time to time [Section 57A of The (Kerala) Abkari Act, I of 1077; Sections 105, 106, 113A and 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 9 of The Opium Act, 1878; Section 9B of The Explosives Act, 1884; Section 7 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Section 10C of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 138A of The Customs Act, 1962; Section 43E of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 98-B of The Gold (Control) Act, 1968; Section 57 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 18 of The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; Sections 35 and 54 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 3C and 3D of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; Section 21 of The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; Section 20 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and Sections 29 and 30 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012]. Seema Silk & Sarees v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2008) 5 SCC 580 restated, a legal provision does not become unconstitutional only because it provides for a reverse burden.

Section 24(a) of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 by no standards can be said to be unreasonable much less manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. More or less, same logic as noted with Section 24(a) would apply even to Section 24(b).  

– Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014].

_____

Vijay Madanlal opined, Section 45 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not require Court must arrive at a positive finding of applicant not having committed an offence. For considering an application for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, and, therefore, evidence need not be weighed ‘meticulously’, a ‘tentative finding’ should be recorded on basis of broad probabilities. The findings recorded by Court for grant or refusing bail being ‘tentative’, it will not have any bearing on merits and Trial Court would proceed and decide without in any manner being prejudiced.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8167 of 2023] decided on 30.10.2023.

_____

It is true, a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and directors. But, lifting of ‘corporate veil’ is permissible when such corporate structures have been used for committing fraud or economic offences or have been used as a ‘façade’ or a ‘sham’ for carrying out illegal activities. High Court had prima facie found guilt which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Satyendra Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Criminal Appeal No. 1638 of 2024] decided on 18.03.2024.

_____

It is thus clear, there is not even a remote possibility of trial being concluded in near future. In our view, keeping Manish behind bars for an unlimited period of time in hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. As observed time and again, prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

Manish has deep roots in society. There is no possibility of him fleeing from India and not being available for facing trial.

Manish shall surrender his passport with Special Court and shall report to Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 and 11 AM.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024] decided on 09.08.2024.

_____

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) SCC OnLine SC 1189 observed, economic offenses involving financial and economic well-being of State have implications which lie beyond domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. It can be concluded, economic offences by their very nature stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. If such offences are viewed lightly, confidence and trust of public will be shaken. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to State v. R. Vasanthi Stanley, (2015) SCC OnLine SC 815.

– Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Anil Bhavarlal v. State of Maharashtra, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10078 of 2023] decided on 20.12.2024.