On July 27, top court had upheld the validity of various provisions of PMLA and said that it is not mandatory to give ECIR to the concerned person.
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a plea seeking a review of the PMLA verdict which upheld the Enforcement Directorate's powers, including those relating to arrest, and sought response from the Centre on the issue.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, also comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, said that while the objective of PMLA is noble and the offence of money laundering is serious, certain aspects of the judgment would need a relook.
The two aspects which the Court specifically highlighted are not providing the accused with a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and reversal of presumption of innocence.
"We are completely in support of prevention of black money or money laundering. Country cannot afford such offence. Object is noble. (But) no providing of ECIR and reversal of presumption of innocence which are two issues which needs reconsideration as per us," the CJI remarked.
On July 27, the top court had upheld the Constitutional validity of various provisions of the PMLA and said that it is not mandatory give an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in every case to the person concerned.
It is enough if the Enforcement Directorate (ED) discloses grounds at the time of arrest, said a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar.
The top court’s ruling came on a batch of 241 petitions, most of them filed by opposition leaders, which challenged several stringent provisions of PMLA in proceeds of crime, search and seizure, power of arrest, attachment of properties, and bail.
The court had upheld the validity of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court) and 50 (statements made to ED officials).
"ECIR cannot be equated with FIR and ECIR is an internal document of ED. Supply of ECIR to accused is not mandatory and only disclosure of reasons during arrest is enough. Even the ED manual is not to be published since it is an internal document," the judgment had said.
The three-judge bench, in its July 27 order, had also underlined that “the principle of innocence of the accused/ offender is regarded as a human right” but “that presumption can be interdicted by a law made by the Parliament/ Legislature”.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court - File Photo")
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}