In a criminal revision petition for discharge, the High Court dismissed the plea, noting that charges were framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, trial commenced, and evidence pointed to the offence. The court held no case for interference.
The petition for discharge was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 92 of 2020
Dr. Pradeep Kumar ..... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the ED : None. ------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-2-
earned the proceeds of crime by laundering the same.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be discharged on the basis of innocence or lack of make-out of offence despite framing of charge and initiation of trial.
Whether the clarifying charge filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act satisfies the requirement of disclosure to the accused.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Pradeep Kumar
Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court