JUDGEMENT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE TITLED “RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR, (2018) 02 DEL CK 0482” CONCERNING OFFENCES UNDER PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. Union Of India & Anr, (2018) 02 DEL CK
0482
PARA NO. 6 & 30
6. There was a debate in the Lok Sabha on Section 45 PMLA and the
proposed amendment. In his reply, the Finance Minister again clarified, as
under:
“Sir, first to answer Mr. Sudhakar Reddy, Section 45(1)(a) is
being omitted because, if the offence is cognizable, then any police officer in
this country can arrest without a warrant. Section 19 says, only the Director
or Assistant Director should investigate the offence. There is a conflict.
Therefore, we are making it non-cognizable. But, investigation will be by the
Director. We will authorise, up to a threshold, State police officers also to
investigate offences. That is why Section 45(1) (a) is being omitted.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. After the 2005 amendment, Section 45 reads as under: “45.
Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable for a
term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule
shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose
the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public
Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
Comments
Post a Comment