SC agrees to hear in open court plea seeking review of PMLA judgement-

admin

Supreme Court agrees to hear journalist Siddique Kappan’s plea seeking bail-


By Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an open court plea by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking a review of the judgment that upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

“The application for oral hearing is allowed. List the matter in the Court on 25.08.2022,” the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said in their order.

The review was sought against the judgement dated July 27 passed by the bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar (now retired) in a batch of more than 200 petitions that empowered ED for making arrests, conducting search and seizures and attaching proceeds of crime. The SC bench also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar had also observed that it was not an “ordinary offence.”

Chidambaram in the petition had argued that the judgment deserved to be reviewed on grounds of grave error and was contrary to article 20 (Protection in respect for conviction of offences) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an open court plea by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking a review of the judgment that upheld the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

“The application for oral hearing is allowed. List the matter in the Court on 25.08.2022,” the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said in their order.

The review was sought against the judgement dated July 27 passed by the bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar (now retired) in a batch of more than 200 petitions that empowered ED for making arrests, conducting search and seizures and attaching proceeds of crime. The SC bench also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar had also observed that it was not an “ordinary offence.”

Chidambaram in the petition had argued that the judgment deserved to be reviewed on grounds of grave error and was contrary to article 20 (Protection in respect for conviction of offences) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.



Source link