The Karnataka High Court recently issued a judgment which dealt with the retrospective application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The court held that a person cannot be tried for an offence under the act for the period when the offence was not inserted in the schedule of offences under the act. This would deny the writ petitioner the protection offered by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with the question of whether a special judge designated to deal with cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is empowered to try offences which do not fall within the act. The court held that that there is no prejudice to a trial before a special judge duly appointed to oversee cases that fall under the act if the object of doing so is to try connected cases before the same court.
The Supreme Court recently clarified and reaffirmed the legal position surrounding the existence and severability of multiple grounds contained in a detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the definition of 'grounds' in a detention order, holding that grounds are the basic facts on which an order is based in light of subsidiary facts or further particulars.
The Supreme Court recently held that a dishonoured post-dated cheque for repayment of a loan instalment that was described as 'security' in the loan agreement was covered by the criminal liability set out in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding whether dishonoured cheques issued to discharge existing liability fall under Section 138, the court explained that the question of whether a post-dated cheque is for "discharge of debt or liability" depends on the nature of the transaction.
In a recent judgment the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the protection granted to public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires approval to be granted before a public servant can be prosecuted. The court examined whether a public servant who has transferred office when an offence is discovered, but remains a public servant, loses the protection granted under the act.