It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone that the action under Section 56 could, at all, have been initiated.
While the applicant’s right to healthcare and medical treatment is a fundamental consideration, it cannot be allowed to overshadow the pressing need to investigate fairly and ensure that due legal processes are followed.
“The summoning of a person repeatedly without probable cause or reasonable ground and only on the ground of suspicion alone is not in accordance with the principles of due causes and fairness”
“The very purpose of the constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory if the authorities concerned are permitted to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the PMLA”.
“Since the territorial jurisdiction of the present case is in Chennai only, therefore Chennai being one of the jurisdictional area under the notification issued by the Central Government, which comes under the jurisdiction of the PDSJ, Chennai, naturally the said case has to be tried in the said Court”
Calcutta High Court held that “no case is made out to seek the exceptional relief of ‘not to take coercive action'.”
Supreme Court held that the words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of other investigating agencies.
The present case is related to the cash-for-jobs scam, in which the Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, has been accused of accepting bribes from candidates in exchange of appointment to the State Transportation Corporation
Supreme Court further made it clear that no further extension of tenure would be granted for SK Mishra.
Supreme Court allowed SK Mishra to continue his services as ED Director till 31-07-2023.
This report provides Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
This report provides Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
The division bench of Madras High Court delivered a split verdict and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to place it before another judge.
The habeas Corpus petition was filed in relation to the cash-for-jobs scam case, in which the Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, has been accused of accepting bribes from candidates in exchange of appointment to the State Transportation Corporation
by Siddharth R. Gupta†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 53
The action came following the Supreme Court’s decision, wherein the Court allowed the appeals arising out of the order for de novo investigation and set aside the directions issued in the original petition for de novo investigation. Further, the Court allowed the ED to continue its investigation.
Following the arrest, Senthil Balaji complained of chest pain and was taken to Government hospital for a medical checkup.
What was compromised between the complainant and accused is not just their disputes, but justice, fair play, good conscience and the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. In fact, the case at hand is one where there are two teams, but no one knows who is playing for which team and where the match was fixed.
Delhi High Court observed that repeated petitions seeking to interdict the proceedings before Lokpal would defeat the very purpose of the legislation.