# VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 6 S.C.R. 382
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-07-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Application No. 1132 of 2012
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vijay-madanlal-choudhary-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-36300
- **Pages:** 345

## Headnote

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.2(1), Clause
(na) - Expression "proceedings" therein - Held: The expression
"proceedings" occurring in Clause (na) of s.2(1) is contextual and
is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry
procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating
Authority, and the Special Court.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.2(1), Clause
(na) -Expression "investigation" therein - Held: The expression
"investigation" in Clause (na) of s.2(1) does not limit itself to the
matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is
interchangeable with the function of "inquiry" to be undertaken
by the Authorities under the Act.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.2(1), Clause
(u), Explanation - Held: Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of s.2(1)
does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and
reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly
as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.3 - Ambit of
- Held: s.3 has a wider reach and captures every process and
activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and
is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of
tainted property in the formal economy - Explanation inserted to
s.3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of
s.3 but is only clarificatory in nature - The expression "and"
occurring in s.3 has to be construed as "or", to give full play to the
said provision so as to include "every" process or activity indulged
into by anyone - The interpretation suggested, that only upon
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 382
382
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property
that the offence of s.3 would be complete, is rejected.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Prosecution on
notional basis or assumption - If permissible - Held: The Authorities
under the Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on
the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless
it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending
enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the
competent forum.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.5 - Validity
of - Held: s.5 is constitutionally valid - It provides for a balancing
arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures
that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the
manner provided by the Act.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.8(4) -
Challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of s.8 - Held: Is rejected
subject to s.8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the
meaning assigned to it - Direction u/s.8(4) for taking possession of
the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is
passed merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment
order, should be an exception and not a rule - That issue will have
to be considered on case-to-case basis.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.17 - Challenge
to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.17 - Rejected - Held:
There are stringent safeguards provided in s.17 and Rules framed
thereunder - Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule
3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into s.17 after its amendment.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.18 - Challenge
to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.18 - Rejected - Held:
Safeguards are provided in s.18 - Amended provision does not suffer
from the vice of arbitrariness.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.19 - Challenge
to the constitutional validity of s.19 - Rejected - Held: There are
stringent safeguards provided in s.19 - The provision does not suffer
from the vice of arbitrariness.
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 799,148. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014)
JULY 27, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.2(1), Clause
(na) - Expression "proceedings" therein - Held: The expression
"proceedings" occurring in Clause (na) of s.2(1) is contextual and
is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry
procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating
Authority, and the Special Court.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.2(1), Clause
(na) -Expression "investigation" therein - Held: The expression
"investigation" in Clause (na) of s.2(1) does not limit itself to the
matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is
interchangeable with the function of "inquiry" to be undertaken
by the Authorities under the Act.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.2(1), Clause
(u), Explanation - Held: Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of s.2(1)
does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and
reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly
as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.3 - Ambit of
- Held: s.3 has a wider reach and captures every process and
activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and
is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of
tainted property in the formal economy - Explanation inserted to
s.3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of
s.3 but is only clarificatory in nature - The expression "and"
occurring in s.3 has to be construed as "or", to give full play to the
said provision so as to include "every" process or activity indulged
into by anyone - The interpretation suggested, that only upon
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 382
382
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property
that the offence of s.3 would be complete, is rejected.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Prosecution on
notional basis or assumption - If permissible - Held: The Authorities
under the Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on
the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless
it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending
enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the
competent forum.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.5 - Validity
of - Held: s.5 is constitutionally valid - It provides for a balancing
arrangement to secure the interests of the person as also ensures
that the proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the
manner provided by the Act.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.8(4) -
Challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of s.8 - Held: Is rejected
subject to s.8 being invoked and operated in accordance with the
meaning assigned to it - Direction u/s.8(4) for taking possession of
the property in question before a formal order of confiscation is
passed merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment
order, should be an exception and not a rule - That issue will have
to be considered on case-to-case basis.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.17 - Challenge
to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.17 - Rejected - Held:
There are stringent safeguards provided in s.17 and Rules framed
thereunder - Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule
3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into s.17 after its amendment.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.18 - Challenge
to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1) of s.18 - Rejected - Held:
Safeguards are provided in s.18 - Amended provision does not suffer
from the vice of arbitrariness.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.19 - Challenge
to the constitutional validity of s.19 - Rejected - Held: There are
stringent safeguards provided in s.19 - The provision does not suffer
from the vice of arbitrariness.
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.24 - Validity
- Held: s.24 has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects
sought to be achieved by the Act and cannot be regarded as
manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.44 - Proviso
in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of s.44 - Held: Is to be regarded as
directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean
that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-tocase basis.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.44 - Challenge
to - Held: No merit in the challenge to s.44 being arbitrary or
unconstitutional - However, the eventualities referred to in this
section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and by the
Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation given.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.45(1) -
Release on bail - Twin conditions in s.45(1) - Held: Reasons which
weighed with this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case for declaring
the twin conditions in s.45(1), as it stood at the relevant time, as
unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the statute
book - It was open to the Parliament to cure the defect noted by
this Court so as to revive the same provision in the existing form.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.45 - Validity
- The provision in the form of s.45, as applicable post amendment
of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and
objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer
from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.45 -
Applicability - Prayer for bail - Held: As regards the prayer for
grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including
those under s.438 CrPC or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of
Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of s.45
may apply - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Invocation of
s.436A CrPC - Permissibility - Held: Beneficial provision of s.436A
CrPC could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence
punishable under the Act - CrPC - s.436A.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.50 - Process
envisaged by s.50 - Held: Is in the nature of an inquiry against the
proceeds of crime and is not "investigation" in strict sense of the
term for initiating prosecution.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.48 -
Authorities under the Act (referred to in s.48) - Held: They are not
police officers as such.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Statements
recorded by Authorities under the Act - Held: They are not hit by
Art.20(3) or Art.21 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950
- Arts. 20(3) and 21.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.63 - Validity
- Held: s.63 providing for punishment regarding false information
or failure to give information does not suffer from any vice of
arbitrariness.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Schedule to
the Act - Inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence - Held:
The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence in the Schedule
to the Act is a matter of legislative policy -The nature or class of
any predicate offence has no bearing on the validity of the Schedule
or any prescription thereunder.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s.48 -
Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) - Held: ECIR cannot
be equated with an FIR under CrPC - ECIR is an internal document
of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) - Fact that FIR in respect of
scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way
of the Authorities referred to in s.48 to commence inquiry/
investigation for initiating "civil action" of "provisional attachment"
of property being proceeds of crime - FIR.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Enforcement
Case Information Report (ECIR) - Held: Supply of a copy of ECIR
in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough
if Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the time of arrest, discloses the
grounds of such arrest - However, when the arrested person is
produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court
to look into the relevant records presented by the authorised
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her
continued detention in connection with the offence of moneylaundering.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Enforcement
Directorate (ED) Manual - Held: Even when ED manual is not to
be published being an internal departmental document issued for
the guidance of the Authorities (ED officials), the department ought
to explore the desirability of placing information on its website which
may broadly outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries
under the Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/
remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority
and before the Special Court.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Vacancies in
Appellate Tribunal - Executive to take corrective measures in this
regard expeditiously.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Argument about
proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of
scheduled offence - Held: Is wholly unfounded.
Answering issues regarding the validity and interpretation
of the provisions of the 2002 Act, the Court
HELD:
(i) The question as to whether some of the amendments to
the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could not have
been enacted by the Parliament by way of a Finance Act has not
been examined in this judgment. The same is left open for being
examined along with or after the decision of the Larger Bench
(seven Judges) of this Court in the case of Rojer Mathew.
(ii) The expression "proceedings" occurring in Clause (na)
of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act is contextual and is required to be
given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed
by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the
Special Court.
(iii) The expression "investigation" in Clause (na) of Section
2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
387
investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is
interchangeable with the function of "inquiry" to be undertaken
by the Authorities under the Act.
(iv) The Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of Section 2(1)
of the 2002 Act does not travel beyond the main provision
predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or
obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence.
(v) (a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and
captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing
with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of
the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal
economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of
amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but
is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word "and" preceding
the expression projecting or claiming as "or"; and being a
clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is
introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise.
(b) Independent of the above, the expression "and"
occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as "or", to give full
play to the said provision so as to include "every" process or
activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the
property as untainted property would constitute an offence of
money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or
activity.
(c) The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, that
only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as
untainted property that the offence of Section 3 would be complete,
stands rejected.
(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent
on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating
to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity
connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of
money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot
prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that
a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered
with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the
person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence
or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of
competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of moneylaundering against him or any one claiming such property being
the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
(vi) Section 5 of the 2002 Act is constitutionally valid. It
provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interests of
the person as also ensures that the proceeds of crime remain
available to be dealt with in the manner provided by the 2002
Act. The procedural safeguards as delineated are effective
measures to protect the interests of person concerned.
(vii) The challenge to the validity of sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the 2002 Act is also rejected subject to Section 8
being invoked and operated in accordance with the meaning
assigned to it.
(viii) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the 2002 Act stands rejected. There are
stringent safeguards provided in Section 17 and Rules framed
thereunder. Moreover, the pre-condition in the proviso to Rule
3(2) of the 2005 Rules cannot be read into Section 17 after its
amendment. The Central Government may take necessary
corrective steps to obviate confusion caused in that regard.
(ix) The challenge to deletion of proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 18 of the 2002 Act also stands rejected. There are
similar safeguards provided in Section 18. The amended provision
does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.
(x) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section
19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards
provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the
vice of arbitrariness.
(xi) Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with
the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act
and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.
(xii) (a) The proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 44 of the 2002 Act is to be regarded as directory in nature
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special
Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to-case basis.
(b) There is no merit in the challenge to Section 44 being
arbitrary or unconstitutional. However, the eventualities referred
to in this section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and
by the Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation
given.
(xiii) (a) The reasons which weighed with this Court in
Nikesh Tarachand Shah for declaring the twin conditions in Section
45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood at the relevant time, as
unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the
statute book; and it was open to the Parliament to cure the defect
noted by this Court so as to revive the same provision in the
existing form.
(b) This Court is unable to agree with the observations in
Nikesh Tarachand Shah distinguishing the enunciation of the
Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh; and other
observations suggestive of doubting the perception of Parliament
in regard to the seriousness of the offence of money-laundering,
including about it posing serious threat to the sovereignty and
integrity of the country.
(c) The provision in the form of Section 45 of the 2002 Act,
as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct
nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by
the 2002 Act and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or
unreasonableness.
(d) As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of
the nature of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of
the 1973 Code or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of
Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of
Section 45 may apply.
(xiv) The beneficial provision of Section 436A of the 1973
Code could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence
punishable under the 2002 Act.
(xv) (a) The process envisaged by Section 50 of the 2002
Act is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
and is not "investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating
prosecution; and the Authorities under the 2002 Act (referred to
in Section 48), are not police officers as such.
(b) The statements recorded by the Authorities under the
2002 Act are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
(xvi) Section 63 of the 2002 Act providing for punishment
regarding false information or failure to give information does
not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness.
(xvii) The inclusion or exclusion of any particular offence
in the Schedule to the 2002 Act is a matter of legislative policy;
and the nature or class of any predicate offence has no bearing
on the validity of the Schedule or any prescription thereunder.
(xviii) (a) In view of special mechanism envisaged by the
2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the 1973
Code. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that
FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does
not come in the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48
to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating "civil action" of
"provisional attachment" of property being proceeds of crime.
(b) Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person
concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of
arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.
(c) However, when the arrested person is produced before
the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to look into the
relevant records presented by the authorised representative of
ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention
in connection with the offence of money-laundering.
(xix) Even when ED manual is not to be published being an
internal departmental document issued for the guidance of the
Authorities (ED officials), the department ought to explore the
desirability of placing information on its website which may broadly
outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries under the
Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/
remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority
and before the Special Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
(xx)The petitioners are justified in expressing serious
concern bordering on causing injustice owing to the vacancies in
the Appellate Tribunal. It is deemed necessary to impress upon
the executive to take corrective measures in this regard
expeditiously.
(xxi) The argument about proportionality of punishment with
reference to the nature of scheduled offence is wholly unfounded
and stands rejected.[Para 187][719-B-H; 720-A-H; 721-A-H; 722A-H; 723-A-C]
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India & Anr. (2018)
11 SCC 1 : [2017] 12 SCR 358; Youth Bar Association
of India v. Union of India & Anr. (2016) 9 SCC 473;
Court on its Own Motion v. State (2010) SCC OnLine
Del 4309; In re, v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
(2021) 10 SCC 598; Nitya Dharmananda & Anr. v.
Gopal Sheelum Reddy & Anr. (2018) 2 SCC 93 : [2017]
12 SCR 118; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14
 SCR 713; E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
(1974) 4 SCC 3 : [1974] 2 SCR 348; S.G. Jaisinghani
v. Union of India and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 703; K. P.
Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulum & Anr. (1981)
4 SCC 173 : [1982] 1 SCR 629; Union of India & Anr.
v. Martin Lottery Agencies Limited (2009) 12 SCC 209
: [2009] 7 SCR 946; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 : [2019] 12 SCR 172;
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram [1962] 3 SCR 338; Raja
Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 828 : [1964]
2 SCR 752; Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr. (1978)
2 SCC 424 : [1978] 3 SCR 608; Tahsildar Singh &
Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 : [1959] 2 Suppl.
 SCR 875; V. K. Mishra & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
& Anr. (2015) 9 SCC 588 : [2015] 8 SCR 1;
Somasundaram alias Somu v. State represented by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police (2020) 7 SCC 722;
Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980)
4 SCC 600 : [1981] 1 SCR 175; Selvi & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 : [2010] 5 SCR 381; State
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808 :
[1962] 3 SCR 10; M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish
Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors. [1954] SCR
1077; Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v.
Ramdev Tobacco Company (1991) 2 SCC 119 : [1991]
1 SCR 126; Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1
SCC
240
:
[1978]
2 SCR 371;
Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345; Noor Aga v.
State of Punjab & Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 417 : [2008]
10 SCR 379; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.
(2010) 3 SCC 571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979; Sakiri Vasu v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409 :
[2007] 12 SCR 1100; D. K. Basu v. State of W. B. (1997)
1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284; Directorate
of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan & Anr. (1994) 3
SCC 440 : [1994] 1 SCR 445; Bidi Supply Co. v. Union
of India & Ors. AIR 1956 SC 479 : [1956] SCR 267;
Collector of Malabar & Anr. v. Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee
AIR 1957 SC 688 : [1957] SCR 970; G.J. Fernandes
v. The State of Mysore & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1753 :
[1967] 3 SCR 636; Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of
Kerala & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 615 : [1986] 3 SCR 518;
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 682 : [2014]
6 SCR 873; Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR
1954 SC 728 : [1955] 1 SCR 707; Deep Chand v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 8;
Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010]
9 SCR 1039; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773; Ayya alias
Ayub v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1989) 1 SCC 374 : [1988]
3 Suppl. SCR 967; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)
3 SCC 713 : (2021) SCC Online SC 50; Krishna Lal
Chawla & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2021)
5 SCC 435; Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors.
(2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017] 9 SCR 797; Joseph Shine v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
393
Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765;
Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf (1976) 1 SCC
128 : [1976] 1 SCR 277; Satnam Singh & Ors. v.
Punjab & Haryana High Court and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC
353 : [1997] 1 SCR 1038; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union
of India & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 637; Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC
427; Kiran Prakash Kulkarni v. The Enforcement
Directorate and Anr. Order dated 11.4.2019 in S.L.P.
(Criminal) No. 1698 of 2019; Rojer Mathew v. South
Indian Bank Limited and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 1 : [2019]
16 SCR 1; Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor,
(1924) SCC OnLine PC 49 : AIR 1925 PC 1; Soni
Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
(1991) 4 SCC 298 : [1991] 3 SCR 812; Mahipal Singh
v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2014) 11
SCC 282 : [2014] 4 SCR 529; Tech Mahindra Limited
v. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad
& Ors. [WP No. 17525/2014 decided on 22.12.2014
by High Court of Andhra Pradesh]; Gadi Nagavekata
Satyanarayana v. Deputy Director Directorate of
Enforcement (2017) SCC Online ATPMLA 2; Arun
Kumar Mishra v. Directorate of Enforcement (2015)
SCC OnLine Del 8658; M/s. Ajanta Merchants Pvt.
Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) SCC OnLine
Del 8659; M/s. Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2016) SCC OnLine Del
475; Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme
Court of India & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 737 : [2014] 11
SCR 1009 ; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
(1978) 4 SCC 494 : [1979] 1 SCR 392; Mithu v. State
of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277 : [1983] 2 SCR 690;
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab alias Abu
Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 :
[2012] 8 SCR 295; Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. v. Union
of India & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 307 : [2010] 13
 SCR 851; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 :
[1952] SCR 1091; Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 602 : [2008]
4 SCR 783; State of Maharashtra v. Chief Information
Commissioner & Anr., (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 1199;
Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1998)
1 SCC 226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595 ; Shashikant v.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC
630 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 474; Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC
295 : [2013] 14 SCR 983; State of Jharkhand through
SP, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Lalu Prasad Yadav
alias Lalu Prasad, (2017) 8 SCC 1 : [2017] 3 SCR 630;
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchandalia Baliay (1977)
4 SCC 308 : [1978] 1 SCR 535; Sanjay Chandra v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 :
[2011] 13 SCR 309; State of Kerela v. Raneef (2011) 1
SCC 784 : [2011] 1 SCR 590; Romesh Chandra Mehta
v. State of West Bengal [1969] 2 SCR 461 : AIR 1970
SC 940; Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of
Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600 : [1981] 1 SCR 175;
Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah & Anr. v. D.K. Guha & Ors.
(1973) 1 SCC 696 : [1973] 3 SCR 438; Poolpandi &
Ors. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. (1992)
3 SCC 259 : [1992] 3 SCR 247; State of Gujarat v.
Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251 : [1965]
2 SCR 457; Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of
Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128 : [1951] SCR 228; Ritesh
Agarwal & Anr. v. Securities and Exchange Board of
India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 205 : [2008] 8 SCR 553;
Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 4 SCC 441 :
[2011] 5 SCR 691; Varinder Singh v. State of Punjab
& Anr. (2014) 3 SCC 151 : [2014] 1 SCR 496;
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v.
Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 SCC 1 :
[2014] 12 SCR 1037; Bihta Co-operative Development
and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. & Anr. v. Bank of Bihar
& Ors. AIR 1967 SC 389 : [1967] 1 SCR 848;
Dattatraya Govind Mahajan & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (1977) 2 SCC 548 : [1977] 2 SCR
790; S. Sundaram Pillai & Ors. v. V. R. Pattabiraman &
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 591 : [1985] 2 SCR 643; Jagan
M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., (2002) 9 SCC 639; Hardev
Motor Transport v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC
613 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 766; Obulapuram Mining
Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Government of India, ILR 2017 Kar 1846;
Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority
(PMLA) & Ors. (2017) 2 LW (Cri) 252; State of Bihar
v. Deokaran Nenshi & Anr. (1972) 2 SCC 890 : [1973]
1 SCR 1004; Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar v.
Suresh Seth, (1981) 2 SCC 790 : [1981] 3 SCR 419;
Smt. Maya Rani Punj (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Delhi (1986) 1 SCC 445 : [1985] 3 Suppl.
 SCR 827; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988
SC 1531 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1 (para 59) : (1988) 2
SCC 602 : [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1; Directorate of
Enforcement v. Surajpal & Ors. (2018) SCC OnLine
Del 10472; Inspector of Police, CBI v. Assistant
Directorate, Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) & Anr.
(2019) SCC OnLine Ker 4546; Sou. Vijaya Alias Baby
v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : [2003]
3 Suppl. SCR 340; State of Karnataka v. Madesha &
Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 35 : [2007] 8 SCR 757; In Re
Kuttayan alias Nambi Thevar AIR 1960 Mad 9; Nagar
Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Ors., AIR
2009 SC 187 : [2008] 14 SCR 419; Rohitash Kumar &
Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 30 :
[2012] 13 SCR 47; Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Anr. v.
Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (2019) SCC Online
Del 6428; Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate
of Enforcement, (2020) SCC Online P&H 738; A.
Kamarunnisa Ghori v. The Chairperson, Prevention of
Money Laundering, Union of India, 2012 (4) CTC 608
: 2012 Writ LR 719; Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1019 : [1963]
1 Suppl. SCR 912; G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 440; State of
Gujarat & Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad
& Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 656 : [1974] 3 SCR 760; State of
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Manipur & Ors. v. Surajkumar Okram & Ors. (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 130; M.K. Ayoob & Ors. v.
Superintendent, Customs Intelligence Unit, Cochin &
Anr., 1984 Crl.L.J. 949; The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue, Madras v. M.K.S. Abu Bucker,
1990 Cri.L.J 704; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas
Nayak & Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 500 : [1984] 2 SCR 914;
Om Prakash & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 14
SCC 1 : [2011] 14 SCR 240; Union of India v.
Thamisharasi & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 190 : [1995] 3
 SCR 905; Gorav Kathuria v. Union of India & Ors.
(2016) SCC OnLine P&H 3428 D.K. Basu v. State of
W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284;
Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors., (2020)
SCC OnLine SC 683; Canon India Private Limited v.
Commissioner of Customs, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 200;
Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar
Gupta and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 391-392/2018;
Attorney General for India & Ors. v. Amratlal
Prajivandas & Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 54 : [1994] 1 Suppl.
 SCR 1; Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay
(1994) 6 SCC 86; The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte &
Anr. AIR 1961 SC 578 : [1961] 3 SCR 107; Thomas
Dana v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 375 : [1959]
1 Suppl. SCR 274; Hira H. Advani etc. v. State of
Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 662; R. Dineshkumar alias
Deena v. State represented by Inspector of Police &
Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 497 : [2015] 5 SCR 605; Shri
Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty &
Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 707 : [1987] 2 SCR 1173;
M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 299 : [1988] 2 SCR 962; Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. (1991) 2 Suppl. SCC 18 : [1990]
3 Suppl. SCR 365; Regional Director, Employees' State
Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works of
P.F.X. Saldanha and Sons & Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 617 :
[1991] 3 SCR 307; Forest Range Officer & Ors. v.
P. Mohammed Ali & Ors., (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 627 :
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
[1993] 3 SCR 497; Commercial Taxation Officer,
Udaipur v. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC 124
: [2007] 1 SCR 855; Associated Indem Mechanical (P)
Ltd. v. W.B. Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd.,
& Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 607 : [2007] 1 SCR 174; N.D.P.
Namboodripad (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2007) 4 SCC 502 : [2007] 3 SCR 769; Oswal Fats
and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly & Ors.
(2010) 4 SCC 728 : [2010] 5 SCR 927; Mamta Surgical
Cotton Industries, Rajasthan v. Assistant Commissioner
(Anti-Evasion), Bhilwara, Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 87
: [2014] 2 SCR 589; Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 : [2017] 13 SCR 156;
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 :
[1994] 2 SCR 375; R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha &
Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 9 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 85;
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law
& Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 221 : [2016] 3 SCR 865; Sanjay
Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC
410 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 263; Joint Directors of Mines
Safety v. M/s Tandur and Nayandgi Stone Quarries (P)
Ltd. (1987) 3 SCC 208 : [1987] 2 SCR 800; Regina v.
Oakes 1959 (2) QB 350; Ishwar Singh Bindra & Ors.
v. The State of U.P. [1969] 1 SCR 219; Gujarat Urja
Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC
755 : [2008] 4 SCR 822; Pratap Singh v. State of
Jharkhand & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 551 : [2005]
1 SCR 1019; National Legal Services Authority v. Union
of India & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 438 : [2014] 5 SCR 119;
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India &
Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 436 : [2005] 1 SCR 494; Githa
Hariharan & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
(1999) 2 SCC 228 : [1999] 1 SCR 669; Rohtas v. State
of Haryana & Anr. (1979) 4 SCC 229 : [1980] 1 SCR
151; Ajmer Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1987)
3 SCC 340 : [1987] 3 SCR 84; Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai
Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1988) 2 SCC 271 :
[1988] 3 SCR 225; Central Bureau of Investigation v.
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1996) 9 SCC 735 : [1996]
3 Suppl. SCR 127; State (Union of India) v. Ram Saran
(2003) 12 SCC 578 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 476;
Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union
of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 1 : [2008] 14 SCR 889;
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement
(Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of
India (2015) 16 SCC 1 : [2015] 15 SCR 499; Union of
India & Ors. v. Chandra Bhushan Yadav (2020) 2 SCC
747; Aswini Kumar Ghose & Anr. v. Arabinda Bose &
Anr. AIR 1952 SC 369 : [1953] SCR 1; Central Bank
of India v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 94 :
[ 2009] 3 SCR 735; Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal
v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 274 : [2003]
5 Suppl. SCR 1; Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI
Bank & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 407 : [2017] 8 SCR 33;
Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi & Ors.
[1963] 2 Suppl. SCR 812; The South India Corporation
(P) Ltd. v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum
& Anr. [1964] 4 SCR 280; Anandji Haridas and Co.
(P) Ltd. v. S.P. Kasture & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 565 : [1968]
1 SCR 661; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Seth & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 27 : [1985]
1 SCR 29; Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo
(2011) 8 SCC 539 : [2011] 9 SCR 936; Bhagirath v.
Delhi Administration, (1985) 2 SCC 580 : [1985]
3 SCR 743; Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Sanjay
Transport Agency & Anr., (2009) 7 SCC 345 : [2009]
9 SCR 690; Hari Narayan Rai v. Union of India & Anr.
(2010) SCC OnLine Jhar 475; Karam Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., (2015) SCC OnLine P&H
19739; Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of
India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 9938;
Vakamulla Chandrashekhar v. Enforcement Directorate
& Anr. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 12810; Virbhadra
Singh & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate & Anr. (2017)
SCC OnLine Del 8930; Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union
of India & Ors. vide order dated 01.12.2017 in W.P.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
(Crl.) No.2465/2017; Directorate of Enforcement v.
Vakamulla Chandrashekhar Order dated 04.01.2018
in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 36918/2017; Rajbhushan
Omprakash Dixit v. Union of India & Anr., Serious
Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Anr. (2019)
5 SCC 266 : [2019] 5 SCR 91; K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant
Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin
(1997) 3 SCC 721 : [1997] 1 SCR 797; Dalmia Cement
(Bharat) Limited & Anr. v. Assistant Director of
Enforcement Directorate (2016) SCC OnLine Hyd 64;
Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 1
: [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272; Commissioner of Income
Tax I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin Health Food Private
Limited (2008) 9 SCC 622 : [2008] 12 SCR 179;
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal v. Shelly Products
& Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 461 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 79;
Gurcharan Singh v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(2008) 17 SCC 28; [2008] 5 SCR 856; Assistant
Electrical Engineer v. Satyendra Rai & Anr. (2014) 4
SCC 513; State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan &
Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 394 : [2018] 10 SCR 974; Union
of India & Ors. v. Mudrika Singh (2021) SCC OnLine
SC 1173; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014)
8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128; Union of India v.
Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 305 :
[2008] 14 SCR 179; Premium Granites & Anr. v. State
of T.N. & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 691 : [1994] 1 SCR 579;
M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 31 : [1982] 2 SCR 31;
Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
(2005) 3 SCC 647 : [2005] 2 SCR 879; Manzoor Ali
Khan v. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 33 :
[ 2014] 7 SCR 569 ; A.K. Roy v. Union of India & Ors.
(1982) 1 SCC 271 : [1982] 2 SCR 272; State of Gujarat
v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364
: [1987] 2 SCR 677; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439 : [2013]
3 SCR 547; Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466 : [2013] 3 SCR 493;
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
State of Bihar & Anr. v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai
(2017) 13 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 503; Mohd. Hanif
Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1958 SC
731 : [1959] SCR 629; Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar
Purshottam Mondkar & Anr. [1958] SCR 1226; Kathi
Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123:
[1952] SCR 435; Kedar Nath Bajoria & Anr. v. The
State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404 : [1954] SCR
30; Special Reference No.1 of 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380
: [1979] 2 SCR 476; Asbury Hospital v. Cass County
326 US 207 [1945]; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The
Union of India & Ors. [1950] SCR 869; The State of
Bombay & Anr. v. F.N. Balsara [1951] SCR 682;
Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Limited & Ors. v.
Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Anr. (1992) 3 SCC 336; [1992]
3 SCR 409; Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats
Ltd. & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 501 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR
369; M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. & Ors. (1998)
8 SCC 227 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 632; State of
Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr.
(1977) 4 SCC 471 : [1978] 1 SCR 641; State of Tamil
Nadu and Ors. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors.
(1984) 1 SCC 515 : [1984] 1 SCR 725; Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345; Collector
of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004)
3 SCC 549 : [2004] 2 SCR 1092; Supdt., Narcotics
Control Bureau, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy (2000) 9 SCC
549; Union of India v. Gurcharan Singh (2003) 11 SCC
764; Union of India v. Abdulla (2004) 13 SCC 504;
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Karma Phuntsok & Ors.
(2005) 12 SCC 480; Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav
v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 242 :
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 381; N.R. Mon v. Mohd.
Nasimuddin (2008) 6 SCC 721 : [2008] 8 SCR 1159;
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and
Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 5 : [2008] 12 SCR 1083; Union
of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul (2009) 2 SCC
624 : [2009] 1 SCR 533; The State of Maharashtra v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
401
Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561 :
[2012] 9 SCR 873; Union of India v. Niyazuddin Sk.
& Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 738 : [2017] 6 SCR 513; Satpal
Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 : [2018]
3 SCR 739; National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 : [2019]
5 SCR 1060; Serious Fraud Investigation Office v.
Nittin Johari & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 165; Modern Dental
College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors.