Read Time: 06 minutes

Sr. Adv. Amit Desai arguing for the petitioner in a batch of petitions challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) submitted that the law on bail is already settled, "When your Lordships see an offence punishable with 7 years, the question to consider is that should there be such a rule of restricting bail to people who have strong roots in the society?"

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar opine in this regard that "it affects the economy of the country, and there are so many people who get affected."

However, Desai responded by stating that even in the cases of smuggling and other serious offenses affecting the economy, the consideration of the judiciary under Section 437 has not been taken away.

The bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in which Desai submitted, "The fundamental nature of the offense is regarding the process of converting illegitimate money into legitimate money."

Earlier, Desai had submitted that the underlying principle of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is to deal with proceeds of crime that were integrated into the legitimate economy and started affecting the financial integrity.

On Tuesday Desai further argued that there are so many people who get caught up in this situation who are not the real beneficiary in the act of money laundering, they are the employees, their families get affected they keep sitting in jails, it is in these kind of situation where we consider rights under 21.

Desai was arguing on the contention that the Judicial officer shall be given power to consider on case to case basis whether to allow bail to an accused under money laundering or not.

Desai said, "We are taking away the discretion of the court, these are experienced judges let them assess the situation. It is the balancing that we are urging your Lordships to consider."

"If it is a crime syndicate then I would be the first person to say that withdraw everything and deal with it in a way at par with TADA and MACOCA, but here there are smal cheating, breach of trust and other issues," Desai added.

Desai further referring to the issue of power of arrest said that the Judgment in the case of Joginder and Arnesh there is a discretion of Arrest. "The arrest is an investigative tool to collect evidence. Do not exercise the power of arrest as pre trial detention," Desai added.

Earlier, Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi on Wednesday appearing for the petitioners submitted that in case of proceeds of crime the importance is of projection of money as tainted or untainted, if the money is not projected as untainted there is no offence of PMLA.

Whereas, Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi had argued in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) challenge that the "uniqueness of the PMLA is the entire heart and soul of money laundering" and that one "cannot presume the heart and soul."

Cause Title: Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. vs Union of India & Other