Veritas Aequitas

We're #hiring a new Associate in New Delhi, Delhi. Apply today or share this post with your network.

#TarsemLal #Balancing ED's Powers and Accused's Rights in PMLA Trials! The Supreme Court's judgment in Tarsem Lal has brought much-needed clarity to the interplay between the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Code of Criminal Procedure [Now, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS')] in the context of PMLA trials. The court has effectively balanced the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with the inherent protections and rights of the accused under the BNSS. #Insight: 1. Once the special court takes cognizance of a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, the ED and its officers are powerless to arrest the accused under Section 19 of the PMLA if the accused was not arrested until the filing of the complaint. 2. If the ED seeks custody of the accused after the special court takes cognizance, it must apply for remand under Section 309 of the CrPC [S. 346 BNSS]. The special court may grant such remand only after hearing the accused and recording brief reasons. 3. An accused appearing pursuant to a summons issued by the special court is not considered to be in the court's custody. The court has the power to exempt personal appearance of the accused while issuing summons under Section 205(1) of the CrPC [S. 228 BNSS]. 4. A bond under Section 88 of the CrPC [S. 91 BNSS] is merely an undertaking by the accused to appear on the next hearing date and does not amount to an order granting bail. If the accused does not appear pursuant to the bond or breaches it, the court can issue warrants under Sections 89 of the CrPC [S. 92 BNSS] or 70 of the CrPC [S. 72 BNSS] to compel the accused's production. #Significance The judgment ensures that the inherent protections and procedural rigors of the BNSS are also applicable to PMLA trials, thereby safeguarding the rights and liberty of the accused. It clarifies that the ED's powers are not absolute and must be exercised within the framework of the CrPC. By requiring the ED to seek remand from the special court and providing the accused with a fair chance to contest such remand requests, the judgment upholds the principles of natural justice and due process. The clarification on the nature of bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC [S. 91 BNSS] and the recourse available to the accused to seek cancellation of warrants further strengthens the accused's position in PMLA trials. #TarsemLalJudgment #PMlATrials #EDPowers #AccusedRights #CrPCApplicability #SpecialCourt #Remand #Bail #SummonedAppearance #WarrantCancellation #InherentProtections #ProceduralRigors #FairTrial #NaturalJustice #DueProcess #EconomicOffenses #IndividualRights #LegalPrinciples #BalancedApproach #BNSS

Can a statutory complaint filed by the accused amount to abetment to suicide? Veritas Aequitas secures bail for Anil Kumar Gupta & Ajay Kumar Gupta in Abetment to Suicide Case! https://lnkd.in/g-UCpKzf Abhimanshu Dhyani Sahil Modi

We’re #hiring. Know anyone who might be interested?

Fighting for the rights of an accused arrested under suspicious circumstances, Advocate Sahil Modi from Veritas Aequitas intensively argued the necessity of balancing two conflicting rights: 1. The accused's right to a fair investigation and trial, and 2. The right to privacy of a third party, who may be involved in the case as a witness or suspected of being the actual accused, while the arrested individual may have been detained mistakenly. The case stems from an FIR registered under Section 306 IPC, with additional sections 385, 420, and 120B IPC later added. The need to reconcile the accused's right to a fair investigation and trial with the right to privacy of a third party, who may be involved in the case as a witness or may be the actual accused, was emphasized. It was pointed out that a significant number of cases result in acquittal due to lack of evidence or improper evidence collection. Therefore, it was questioned why the final report is always intended to be in the form of a chargesheet, instead of considering closure, cancellation, or untrace reports in circumstances where the final report is bereft of any cogent material. Furthermore, it was argued that although an accused has no formal right to intervene in an investigation, this should not be interpreted to mean the accused cannot assist in the investigation, especially when the arrest is under suspicion and no substantial evidence is traceable. The accused must be heard, and the information they provide should be investigated to ascertain any exculpatory factors. This approach would prevent unnecessary wastage of judicial time and the unjust impact on the accused's life. Reliance was placed on the judgment in CRR No. 2605 of 2023 (O&M) by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which underscored the importance of preserving call details and tower locations to prevent the loss of evidence, recognizing the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. These arguments were presented in an application filed under Section 91 CrPC, requesting the magistrate concerned to direct the investigating officer to preserve call detail records of certain numbers and CCTV footage from specific locations. The court allowed the application, directing the investigating officer to collect all requisite evidence related to the case. This decision upholds the principle that the accused's right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, may, in certain circumstances, override the right to privacy. #FairInvestigation #LegalRights #FairTrial #AdvocateSahilModi #VeritasAequitas #Justice #DueProcess #HumanRights #Article21 #PrivacyVsJustice #LegalUpdate #CriminalLaw #CourtRuling #LegalAdvocacy #LegalNews #FIR #IPC #IndianJudiciary #LegalReform Case Details: Misc. Application No. 1952/2024 Dehradun District Court

Veritas Aequitas Achieves Significant Victory in Striking Off Party from Money Recovery Suit! We are proud to announce a recent favorable order in a case where the firm successfully argued for the striking off of an unnecessary party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.The case involved a suit for recovery of money due on account of a work order. Advocate Sahil Modi, under the able guidance of Advocate Abhimanshu Dhyani, rigorously argued that the defendant in question was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, as there were no allegations or relief claimed against them. The court, after carefully examining the case file and the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, agreed with the arguments put forth by the Veritas Aequitas team. It was pointed out that the plaintiff had not made any allegations against the defendant in question and had not sought any relief from them, indicating that they were not a necessary or proper party to the suit. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, the court held that the two-pronged test of (i) a right to some relief against the party, and (ii) the necessity of the party's presence for effective adjudication, was not satisfied in this case. Consequently, the court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and ordered the deletion of the defendant from the array of parties. This victory underscores Veritas Aequitas commitment to providing exceptional legal services and its unwavering dedication to protecting the interests of its clients. #VeritasAequitas #LegalVictory #CivilProcedure #OrderOneRule10 #UnnecessaryParty #LegalServices #TestCPC #NecessaryProperParty #Civil #CaseLaw Case Details: CS/886/2022, Civil Courts, Panipat

We are proud to announce that Veritas Aequitas has successfully secured an acquittal in a significant case concerning allegations in relation to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and involving a dying declaration. This victory highlights our firm's unwavering commitment to justice and exceptional legal advocacy. We would also like to acknowledge the persistent efforts of Advocate Kallakury Sharat Kumar whose dedication played a key role in defending the accused.Thank you to all our supporters and followers for your continued trust in Veritas Aequitas. We remain steadfast in our mission to uphold justice and provide outstanding legal services. #VeritasAequitas #LegalVictory #Section306IPC #Acquittal #JusticeSystem #LegalAdvocacy #LegalServices Abhimanshu Dhyani Sahil Modi Case Details: SC/108/2022, Principal Senior Civil Judge Court ,Ranga Reddy