Leave a Comment / Criminal Law: / By

25 % CBI specific

DSPE Act, 1946

SectionTopicWhy it is High Relevance (Based on PYQ)
Section 4Superintendence and AdministrationCrucial Distinction: Questions often trick you on who holds superintendence.
• For offences under PC Act: Superintendence vests in CVC.
• For other offences: Superintendence vests in Central Govt.
– Administration vest in CG appointed Director ( power as of IG in state)
Section 4AAppointment of Director (CBI)Most Asked Question:
1. Who constitutes the Committee? (PM as chairperson + Leader of Opposition + CJI).
2. What is the tenure? (Not less than 2 years).
3. Can it be extended? (Yes, up to 5 years total but 1 y at a time rec. by comm. + reason)
Invalidation of Specific Extensions to bypass mandamus – 2021 Common Cause judgment
Section 4B(1)-
Constitutional validity of the 2021 amendments-(Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India 2023)
Section 4BADirector of Prosecution Director of Prosecution- headed by Director- officer not below joint sec. to GoI
• Appointment: By Central Govt on recommendation of CVC.
Hold office upto 2 years
Section 4CAppoint. to post SP and aboveCG on recommendation of –
CVC+ VC+ secretary home min. + secretary Depart. of personnel
Section 6Consent of State GovernmentSection 5 (Extension of Jurisdiction):
Empowers the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the DSPE (CBI) to any area (including Railway areas) in a State.
But,
Section 6 (The “Federal Brake” / Consent Clause):
Statutory Bar: “Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the DSPE to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State… without the consent of the Government of that State.“

Why?
Constitutional Basis: “Police” is a State Subject (Entry 2, List II, Seventh Schedule). The CBI, being a central agency, cannot encroach upon this state power without permission. The Parliament derives the power to create the CBI under Entry 80 of the Union List (Extension of powers of police force belonging to one State to any area outside that State), which explicitly requires State consent.

Exceptions:
A) no consent require if HC or SC orders (Bypassing Section 6)
Case: State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar (March 2024)
reiterated principle developed in State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010)
Ratio: The Supreme Court and High Courts (exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226) can order a CBI investigation without the State’s consent.

B) Recent Development: Post-Bifurcation of state Consent (Jan 2025)
Case: CBI vs. A. Satish Kumar & Ors. (Supreme Court, decided Jan 6, 2025)
Context: The issue was whether general consent given by the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh continued to apply to the newly formed state of Telangana/AP after the 2014 bifurcation.
Ruling: The SC held that pre-existing general consent continues until explicitly withdrawn or modified by the new State. This is a crucial precedent for “Succession of Laws.”

C) Procedural Irregularity
If the CBI investigates a case without valid State consent, does the trial become void?
Legal Principle: No. The Courts (relying on H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi) have generally held that a defect in investigation (like lack of consent) does not automatically vitiate the trial unless the accused can prove a “miscarriage of justice” occurred (refer to Section 465 CrPC / Section 510 BNSS).

D) over Central Govt. employee
Case: CBI vs. A. Satish Kumar & Ors.
The Ruling: The Court held that state consent is NOT mandatory for registering FIRs against Central Government employees for offenses under Central Acts (like the Prevention of Corruption Act).

E) “Delhi Registration” Loophole (Kanwal Tanuj Case)
Before the 2025 judgment, the CBI often used this method to bypass States that withdrew consent (like West Bengal or Tamil Nadu).
Case: Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar (2020)
Court: if main offence occurred in Delhi then, may investigate and arrest in states under 185 BNSS.

The “Federal Suit” (Article 131)
Case: State of West Bengal v. Union of India
Date: July 10, 2024 (Order on Maintainability)
Key Observation: The Court noted that the “constitution of the CBI” and its “superintendence” (Section 4 of DSPE Act) are tied to the Central Government. Therefore, the State can sue the Union for the CBI’s actions.

Section 6A
struck down		Approval for Inquiry (Joint Secretary Level) This section mandated prior approval to investigate officers of Joint Secretary level and above.
• Status: Struck down as unconstitutional in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014).
• 2025 Prediction: Expect a question on the CBI v. R.R. Kishore (2023) judgment regarding its retrospective application and reiterated unconstitutional.

but, this filter retain by legislature in 17A of PC Act, this time w/o Rank wise discrimination.
SectionTopicRelevance

Prevention of Corruption Act

SectionRelevancePYQ Reference (Why it is Relevant)Possible Questions
Section 2High2021 Q30: Definition of “Public Servant”. Asked if Judge, Arbitrator, Assistant Professor are public servants. 3
1. Is a Cooperative Bank Manager a “Public Servant” under Sec 2(c)?
2. Which of the following is NOT a public servant?
Section 3Medium2021 Q32: Qualifications for appointing a Special Judge (Sessions Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge). 4
2023 Q111: Jurisdiction of Special Judge to try attempts/abetments. 5		1. Who has the power to appoint a Special Judge?
2. What is the minimum qualification required to be appointed as a Special Judge?
Section 4High2021 Q38, Q39: Procedure for trial (Day-to-day proceedings).

2023 Q111: Powers to try offences. 7		1. Can a Special Judge try offences other than those under PC Act at the same trial?
2. What is the maximum adjournment period allowed in a trial?
Section 5Medium2021 Q38: Procedure to be followed (Warrant cases). 91. A Special Judge follows the procedure of which court? (Court of Session/Magistrate).
2. Can a Special Judge tender pardon to an accomplice (Section 5(2))?
Section 6Medium2021 Q31: Summary trial power regarding Essential Commodities Act. 101. Under Section 6, a Special Judge can try summarily offences related to which Act? (Essential Commodities Act).
Section 7Very High2023 Q71: Offence of receiving “undue advantage”.
2023 Q109: Proof of guilt in absence of complainant. 12		1. What constitutes “Undue Advantage”? (any gratification other then legal renumeration <may not be estimable in money>)
2. Is “Sexual Favours” covered under Undue Advantage? (Yes).
Section 8Medium2021 Q35: Mentions “taking gratification to influence public servant” (Old Sec 8 concept). 131. Punishment for giving a bribe?
2. Is a bribe-giver immune if they report the matter within 7 days?
Section 11Medium2021 Q35: Mentions “public servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration”. 141. Difference between Section 7 and Section 11? (11 applies to business transactions/official dealings).
Section 12Medium2021 Q37: Punishment for Abetment (Minimum punishment). 151. What is the minimum punishment for abetment under Section 12? (3 years).
Section 13Very High2021 Q33: Definition of “Criminal Misconduct”. Specifically tested “Disproportionate Assets” and “Illicit Enrichment”. 16
Section 14Medium2021 Q35: Discusses “habitual commission” of offences. 171. Enhanced punishment for habitual offenders?
Section 17High2021 Q34: Persons authorized to investigate (Ranks: Inspector in Delhi, DSP in others). 181. Who can investigate a PC Act offence in Mumbai/Chennai? (ACP/Assistant Commissioner).
2. Can a Police Inspector investigate without 1st class magistrate order?
Section 17AHigh2023 Q71: Inquiry/Investigation approval. 191. Who is the competent authority to grant approval for enquiry (Sec 17A) vs prosecution (Sec 19)?
2. What is the timeline for deciding 17A approval?
3. on the spot arrest involvement loophole.
Section 19Very High2023 Q71, Q120: Sanction for prosecution. Tested the validity of sanction if influenced by CVC. 1. Is sanction required for retired public servants? (Yes, post-2018 amendment).
2. What is the time limit for granting sanction? (3 months + 1 month).
Section 20High2023 Q109: Presumption where public servant accepts undue advantage. 211. Is the presumption under Section 20 rebuttable or irrebuttable?
2. Does Section 20 apply to Section 13 (Criminal Misconduct)? (No, typically applies to Sec 7).
Section 21Medium2023 Q110: Accused person as a competent witness. 221. Can an accused offer himself as a witness on oath? (Yes, Sec 21).
2. Can the prosecution comment on the accused’s failure to give evidence? (No).
Section 27Low/Med2021 Q36: Powers of High Court (Appeal/Revision). 231. Does the High Court have the power of Revision against interlocutory orders in PC Act cases? (No).

important judgements:

Supreme Court Judgments for CBI APP 2025 (Prevention of Corruption Act)

The exam focuses on Procedural Immunity (Sanction/Approvals), Standard of Proof (Demand & Acceptance), and Retrospectivity.

1. Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) [Constitution Bench]

  • Why Relevant: This 7-Judge Bench judgment overruled the 25-year-old P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment. It is the biggest corruption-related legal development of the decade.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Legislative Immunity: Members of Parliament (MPs) and MLAs do not enjoy immunity from prosecution for bribery under Article 105(2) or 194(2) of the Constitution.
    • Bribery: Accepting a bribe to vote or speak in a certain way is a crime independent of the actual vote/speech. The offence is complete upon acceptance of the bribe.
    • Impact: Legislators can now be prosecuted under the PC Act for “cash-for-votes” scams.

2. Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) [Split Verdict]

  • Why Relevant: It deals with the interpretation of Section 17A (Prior Approval for Investigation), which is the most litigated section of the amended PC Act.
  • Court’s Holding (Split):
    • Justice Aniruddha Bose: Section 17A applies retrospectively. Prior approval is mandatory for any enquiry starting after 2018, even if the offence occurred before 2018.
    • Justice Bela M. Trivedi: Section 17A is substantive and applies prospectively. It does not protect public servants for offences committed before the 2018 Amendment.
    • Exam Status: Since it is referred to a larger bench, the “Legal Position” question will likely ask: “Is the law on retrospective application of Section 17A settled?” (No) or ask about the specific conflicting views.

3. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) & Soundarajan v. State (2023)

  • Why Relevant: These cases clarified the “Standard of Proof” for bribery, crucial for prosecutors. Soundarajan (decided shortly after Neeraj Dutta) refined the rule on “Demand”.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Neeraj Dutta: Direct oral evidence of demand is not mandatory. It can be proved by circumstantial evidence if the complainant is hostile.
    • Soundarajan: However, proof of demand is sine qua non (absolute necessity). Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused is insufficient to convict if the “demand” is not independently proved (even circumstantially).
    • Key Distinction: Neeraj Dutta allows circumstantial evidence; Soundarajan warns that such evidence must still conclusively prove the “demand” existed.

4. Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka (2024)

  • Why Relevant: Clarifies the scope of Section 17A regarding “trap cases.”
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Trap Cases: Section 17A (Prior Approval) does not apply to “trap cases” (where the accused is caught red-handed accepting a bribe).
    • Reasoning: Accepting a bribe is not an act done in “discharge of official functions or duties.” Therefore, no government approval is needed to arrest or investigate a public servant caught in a trap.

5. State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer (2023-24 Context)

  • Why Relevant: Relates to the validity of sanction (Section 19).
  • Court’s Holding: A sanction order need not be a detailed judgment. It only needs to show that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the materials placed before it. A clerical error or lack of detailed reasons does not vitiate the sanction (reiterating Vijay Rajmohan).

Summary Table for Revision

Case NameYearRelevant SectionKey Legal Principle (The “Answer”)
Sita Soren v. Union of India2024Art 105/194 + PC ActMPs/MLAs have NO immunity from bribery prosecution. Overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao.
Nara Chandrababu Naidu2024Section 17ASplit Verdict on whether Section 17A applies to offences committed before 2018. Matter referred to larger bench.
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka2024Section 17ANo Prior Approval needed for “Trap Cases” (caught red-handed).
Soundarajan v. State2023Section 7Demand is Sine Qua Non. Mere recovery of money is not enough for conviction; demand must be proved.
CBI v. R.R. Kishore2023Section 6A (DSPE)Retrospective Application: Removal of immunity for Joint Secretaries applies to old cases too.

Why These Will Be Asked?

Shadakshari gives clarity on “Trap Cases,” which are the most common type of cases a CBI APP handles daily.

Sita Soren is a historic 7-Judge bench verdict changing the law on legislative privilege and corruption.

Chandrababu Naidu involves a high-profile politician and a disputed interpretation of the 2018 Amendment (Sec 17A), which is the most contentious issue for CBI today.

CVC Act

The PYQs indicate a very specific pattern: The Examiner focuses heavily on Section 8 (Functions & Powers), Section 11 (Civil Court Powers), and Section 25 (Appointments to ED).

SectionRelevancePYQ Reference (Why it is Relevant)Possible Questions for 2025
Section 8Very High2021 Q22: Asked about superintendence over DSPE, giving directions, and reviewing progress3.
2021 Q24: Asked about jurisdiction to inquire into complaints against Group A officers vs All India Services4.
2021 Q25: Asked about advising Central Govt on disciplinary matters5.
2023 Q119: Asked to identify which is not a function of CVC under Section 86.		1. Does CVC have power to inquire into complaints against Group B officers? (No, usually Group A/All India Services).
2. Can CVC give directions to CBI to dispose of a case in a particular manner? (No, Section 8(1)(b) prohibits this).
Section 9Medium2021 Q23: Asked if proceedings are invalid due to vacancy or defect in appointment7.1. If the CVC post is vacant, is a decision taken by the Vigilance Commissioner valid? (Yes).
Section 11High2021 Q27: Asked about CVC having powers of a “Civil Court” while conducting inquiry8.
2021 Q29: Asked about the limit on calling for information (cannot adjudicate)9.		1. Under Section 11, the CVC has powers of a Civil Court for which purposes? (Summoning, discovery of documents, etc.).
2. Can CVC mandate the production of documents that prejudice national security?
Section 12Medium2021 Q28: Asked if proceedings before CVC are “Judicial Proceedings” under IPC (Sec 193/228)10.1. Are proceedings before CVC deemed “judicial proceedings” for the purpose of Section 193 IPC? (Yes).
Section 25Very High2021 Q26: Asked about the Committee to appoint the Director of Enforcement (ED)11.
2023 Q118: Asked about the constitutional validity of the CVC (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Tenure of ED Director)12.		1. Who chairs the committee to appoint the Director of Enforcement? (Central Vigilance Commissioner).
2. What is the maximum tenure of the ED Director after the 2021 Amendment? (Up to 5 years).
Section 26LowIndirectly 2021 Q48: Mentions Committee for CBI Director (Section 4A DSPE), where CVC is a member13.1. Who is the Chairperson of the Committee to appoint the CBI Director? (PM, but CVC is a member).

Detailed Analysis of Why These Sections Are Relevant

1. Section 8: Functions and Powers (The Core)

  • Why Relevant: The 2021 paper devoted 4 separate questions (Q22, Q24, Q25, Q29) just to this section. The 2023 paper (Q119) also asked a negative question (“Which is NOT a function”).
  • Key Distinction to Study: You must know who the CVC can investigate.
    • Group A Officers: Yes.
    • All India Services: Yes.
    • Group B/C/D: Generally No (unless referred).
  • Crucial Limitation: Section 8(1)(b) empowers CVC to give directions to CBI, but explicitly excludes the power to direct CBI to investigate a case in a specific manner. This exception is a favorite exam trap.

2. Section 25: Directorate of Enforcement (ED)

  • Why Relevant: With the rise of PMLA cases, the ED has become central. Section 25 of the CVC Act governs the Appointment and Tenure of the ED Director.
  • Recent Trend: The 2023 paper (Q118) asked about the Dr. Jaya Thakur case, which challenged the amendments to this very section regarding tenure extension.
  • Committee Composition (Must Memorize):
    • Chairperson: Central Vigilance Commissioner.
    • Members: Vigilance Commissioners, Secretary (Home), Secretary (Personnel), Secretary (Revenue).

3. Section 11 & 12: Quasi-Judicial Nature

  • Why Relevant: The 2021 paper tested the legal nature of CVC proceedings.
  • Key Fact: While CVC is an advisory body, for the purpose of inquiry, it acts like a Civil Court (Section 11) and its proceedings are Judicial Proceedings (Section 12). This gives it teeth to summon documents and witnesses.

Sections Not Asked (But Read Once)

  • Section 3 (Constitution of CVC): Appointment of CVC/VCs by the President. (Basic GK).
  • Section 5 (Terms of Service): Tenure of CVC (4 years or 65 years age). This is often asked in General Studies but hasn’t appeared in Law papers yet.
  • Section 15/16 (Staff/Expenses): Low probability.

Summary of Action Plan

  1. Memorize Section 8(1) clauses: Specifically the difference between superintendence over CBI (Sec 8(1)(a)) and CVOs (Sec 8(1)(d)).
  2. Memorize the Committee in Section 25: Know exactly who appoints the ED Director.
  3. Understand the “Civil Court” powers in Section 11: Know that CVC can take evidence on oath.

List of Supreme Court judgments and significant legal orders related to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act from 2024 and 2025.

they settle the law on Disciplinary Proceedings, Tenure Extensions, and Vigilance Clearance.

1. A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India & Ors. (May 2025)

  • Citation: 2025 INSC 744
  • Topic: Mandatory CVC Consultation in Disciplinary Proceedings.
  • The Issue: The appellant challenged his disciplinary charge sheet on the ground that the Bank failed to consult the CVC before issuing it, despite Regulation 19 stating the Bank “shall” consult the CVC.
  • Supreme Court Holding:
    • “Shall” means Mandatory: The Court held that when regulations use the word “shall” regarding CVC consultation for vigilance cases, it is a mandatory obligation, not directory.
    • Supply of CVC Advice: Reaffirming SBI v. D.C. Aggarwal, the Court held that if the Disciplinary Authority relies on the CVC’s “First Stage Advice” or “Second Stage Advice” to impose a penalty, a copy of that advice must be furnished to the delinquent employee. Withholding it violates principles of natural justice.
    • Impact: A major win for employees. Disciplinary proceedings can be quashed if CVC advice is hidden.

2. Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) v. Union of India (April 2025)

  • Topic: Section 17A Approval & CVC Superintendence.
  • The Issue: The Petitioner challenged the delay and opacity in granting approvals under Section 17A of the PC Act (protection for public servants).
  • Supreme Court Order:
    • The Court directed the Union Government to file a detailed affidavit listing how many Section 17A requests are pending and for how long.
    • Relevance to CVC: The Court scrutinized the CVC’s role in monitoring these delays. Under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act, the CVC has the power to review the progress of applications pending for sanction. The Court emphasized that CVC must actively monitor these pendencies to prevent the “death of investigation by delay.”

3. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2023-2024 Review)

  • Topic: Extension of Tenure (ED/CBI Director) – Section 25 CVC Act.
  • Context: While the main judgment upholding the CVC (Amendment) Act, 2021 came in 2023, the review petitions and challenges regarding its implementation continued into 2024.
  • Key Legal Position (2024 Status):
    • Validity: The Amendment allowing the extension of the ED/CBI Director’s tenure by 1 year at a time (up to 5 years total) remains valid.
    • Appointment Committee: The High Powered Committee (CVC + Secretaries for ED; PM + CJI + LoP for CBI) must record reasons in “public interest” for every extension. It cannot be automatic.
    • Relevance: This remains the standard case for any question on Section 25 of the CVC Act regarding the Director of Enforcement’s tenure.

4. Union of India v. (Various Respondents regarding Vigilance Clearance) (2024)

  • Topic: Withholding Vigilance Clearance & Promotion.
  • The Issue: Can “Vigilance Clearance” be denied merely because a complaint is pending, even if no charge sheet is filed?
  • Court’s Stance (2024 Guidelines):
    • The Courts clarified that Vigilance Clearance cannot be withheld solely on the basis of a pending preliminary inquiry or a complaint.
    • It can be withheld only if:
      1. A Charge Sheet has been issued.
      2. Prosecution Sanction has been granted.
      3. The officer is under suspension.
    • Impact: This checks the arbitrary power of CVOs (Chief Vigilance Officers) to stall promotions.

Summary for Exam Revision

Case NameYearRelevant CVC SectionKey Principle
A.M. Kulshrestha2025Section 8 (Advice)Mandatory Consultation: CVC advice must be sought if rules say “shall”. Mandatory Disclosure: CVC advice must be shown to the accused employee.
CPIL v. Union of India2025Section 8(1)(f)17A Monitoring: CVC must monitor delays in granting investigation approvals; indefinite delay is impermissible.
Dr. Jaya Thakur2024Section 25Tenure Extension: Extensions (1 year at a time) are valid but must be based on recorded “public interest” by the Committee.

PMLA Act

Based on a detailed analysis of the CBI APP 2021 and 2023 Previous Year Question (PYQ) papers, here is the comprehensive analysis of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The PMLA has gained massive weightage in the 2023 paper and is a “High Priority” subject for 2025. The questions are statute-heavy, focusing on Time Limits, Powers of Officers, and Bail.

Table of Highly Relevant Sections: PMLA, 2002

SectionRelevancePYQ Reference (Why it is Relevant)Possible Questions for 2025
Section 2High2021 Q53: Definition of “Person” (Section 2(1)(s)). Asked if it includes H.U.F. and Company.1. Does “Proceeds of Crime” (Sec 2(1)(u)) include assets held abroad? (Yes).
2. Who is a “Beneficial Owner”?
Section 3Very High2021 Q59: Asked about the stages of money laundering (Placement, Layering, Integration) – conceptual link to Sec 3.1. Is mere “possession” of proceeds of crime an offence under Section 3? (Yes).
2. Is Money Laundering a continuing offence?
Section 4Very High2021 Q60 / 2023 Q84: Punishment details. Tested minimum sentence (3 years) and the proviso (Narcotics cases = 10 years).1. What is the maximum punishment if the scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act? (10 Years).
2. Is there a limit on the fine? (No).
Section 5Very High2021 Q54: Provisional Attachment period. Tested the 180-day limit.1. Who confirms the provisional attachment? (Adjudicating Authority).
2. Does the 180-day period include stay orders by High Court? (No, excluded).
Section 6Medium2021 Q56: Composition of Adjudicating Authority.1. Who appoints the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority?
2. Qualification of members?
Section 19Very High2021 Q55: Power to Arrest. Asked who can arrest (Director/Deputy Director/Asst. Director).1. Is it mandatory to supply “Grounds of Arrest” in writing? (Yes – Pankaj Bansal case).
2. Can a police officer arrest under Section 19? (No).
Section 22High2023 Q85: Presumption regarding records/property found during search.1. If a diary is found in your house during a search, does the law presume the contents are true? (Yes, Section 22).
Section 24HighImplied in Case Laws: Burden of Proof (Reverse Onus).1. On whom does the burden of proof lie to prove property is not proceeds of crime? (The Accused).
Section 42Medium2021 Q57: Appeal to High Court. Tested the limitation period (60 days).1. Can the High Court condone delay beyond 60 days? (Yes, up to a further 60 days, total 120).
Section 45Critical2021 Q58: Bail conditions (“Twin Conditions”). Referenced the Nikesh Tarachand Shah case.1. Are the “Twin Conditions” applicable to Anticipatory Bail? (Yes).
2. Can a woman/sick person be released without satisfying twin conditions? (Yes, Proviso to S. 45).
Section 49/50Medium2023 Q83: Power of Central Govt to issue directions regarding territorial jurisdiction.1. Are statements recorded by ED officers under Section 50 admissible in court? (Yes, they are judicial proceedings).

Detailed Analysis: Why These Sections Are Relevant?

1. Section 45 (Bail) is the “Hot Topic”

  • Why: The “Twin Conditions” (Public Prosecutor must oppose + Court must be satisfied accused is not guilty) make PMLA bail extremely difficult. The 2021 paper asked about the Nikesh Tarachand judgment which struck it down, but the Vijay Madanlal (2022) judgment revived it.
  • Prediction: In 2025, expect a question on Section 45 in light of the Vijay Madanlal judgment confirming its validity.

2. Section 5 (Attachment) & Section 19 (Arrest) are “Operational Powers”

  • Why: The ED’s power comes from attaching property and arresting people. The PYQs explicitly asked about the Timeline (180 days) for attachment and the Rank of Officer who can arrest.
  • Trap: Note that for Arrest (Sec 19), an “Assistant Director” can arrest if authorized, but for some other powers, they might not be empowered.

3. Section 22 (Presumptions) is “Pro-Prosecution”

  • Why: The 2023 paper asked a detailed question on Section 22. This section is dangerous for the accused because it shifts the burden. If a document is found in your house, the court shall presume it belongs to you and its contents are true. This is key for APPs to know for trials.

4. Section 4 (Punishment) & Proviso

  • Why: Examiners love the exception.
    • General Punishment: 3 to 7 Years.
    • Exception: If the crime involves Narcotic Drugs (NDPS Act), punishment extends to 10 Years.
    • The 2023 paper tested exactly this nuance regarding “murder” (which is not NDPS, so max is 7 years).

Summary of Action Plan for PMLA

  1. Memorize the Timeline: 180 days for Provisional Attachment (Sec 5).
  2. Memorize the Appeal Limit: 60 days to High Court (Sec 42).
  3. Master Section 50: Understand that ED officers are not police officers, so confessions given to them are admissible (unlike Police confessions).
  4. Read Section 45 Proviso: Know who gets exempted from strict bail rules (Women, Children, Sick, Infirm).

Important Judgements:

These cases are critical because they settle (or unsettle) the law on Arrest, Bail, Scheduled Offences, and the Constitutional Validity of PMLA provisions.

1. Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024)

  • Topic: Power of Arrest (Section 19) & Interim Bail.
  • Why Relevant: This high-profile case tested the limits of the ED’s power to arrest a sitting Chief Minister. It is a textbook case for Section 19 compliance.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • “Reasons to Believe”: The power to arrest under Section 19 is not absolute. The officer must have material in possession and must record “reasons to believe” in writing that the person is guilty.
    • Judicial Review: The subjective satisfaction of the arresting officer is subject to judicial review. The court can examine if the belief was formed on relevant material.
    • Interim Bail: The SC granted him interim bail for election campaigning, establishing that constitutional functionaries may be granted temporary liberty even under PMLA’s strict rigours.

2. Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024)

  • Topic: Right to Speedy Trial vs. Section 45 (Bail).
  • Why Relevant: This judgment creates a “Constitutional Exception” to the strict twin conditions of bail under Section 45 PMLA.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Bail as a Right: Even under PMLA, if there is a long delay in the commencement of the trial (17 months in this case), the accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely.
    • Article 21 Override: The fundamental right to a speedy trial (Article 21) overrides the statutory restrictions of Section 45. The accused was granted bail despite the ED’s opposition.

3. Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023-24)

  • Topic: Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) as a Scheduled Offence.
  • Why Relevant: This judgment stopped the ED from overreaching by using “Conspiracy” to investigate non-scheduled crimes.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Limited Scope: Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) is a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy is to commit an offence that is specifically listed in the PMLA Schedule.
    • Impact: ED cannot register a PMLA case for a conspiracy to commit a simple tax offence or other non-scheduled crimes.

4. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, ED (2023-24)

  • Topic: Bail Parity & Twin Conditions.
  • Why Relevant: It clarifies that “Parity” (co-accused got bail, so I should too) is not an automatic right under PMLA.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Strict Compliance: To get bail, the individual role of the accused must be examined against the twin conditions of Section 45. Bail cannot be granted merely because other co-accused are out on bail.
    • Burden of Proof: The burden remains on the accused to prove they are not guilty at the bail stage.

5. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023)

  • Topic: Grounds of Arrest (Section 19).
  • Why Relevant: This is the most cited case in 2024-25 for illegal arrest.
  • Court’s Holding:
    • Written Grounds Mandatory: The ED must furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused at the time of arrest. Oral intimation is unconstitutional and violates Article 22(1).
    • Reason: This enables the accused to seek effective legal counsel and challenge the remand.

6. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Review Petitions 2024-25)

  • Topic: Review of Constitutionality (ECIR, Twin Conditions, Burden of Proof).
  • Why Relevant: The 2022 judgment upholding PMLA is under review. In 2024-25, the SC heard arguments on whether the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) must be supplied to the accused like an FIR.
  • Current Status: The court has agreed to review mainly two issues:
    1. Non-supply of ECIR.
    2. Reversal of the presumption of innocence.
    • Note for Exam: Watch out for the final verdict or interim orders in this review, as it challenges the core of the 2022 judgment.

7. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (Jan 2025)

  • Relevance: EXTREMELY HIGH (Must Read)
  • Why? This case connects PMLA with Article 22 (Constitution).
    • The PYQ Connection: In 2021 (Q55) and 2023, the exam tested the specific powers of arrest. This judgment clarifies that Section 19 PMLA does not override Article 22, meaning the “24-hour production rule” is sacrosanct.
    • Exam Question Potential: “If an accused is not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of detention by ED, is the arrest illegal despite Section 19 PMLA?” (Answer: Yes, and bail is mandatory).

8. Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad (Feb 2025)

  • Relevance: VERY HIGH
  • Why this judgement? It reaffirms the “Twin Conditions” (Section 45) which is the examiners’ favorite topic (asked in 2021 Q58).
    • The PYQ Connection: The exam loves asking about the “rigour” of Section 45. This case is the latest authority saying that High Courts cannot skip recording findings on “not guilty” satisfaction. It is the “Pro-Prosecution” counter-balance to the Sisodia judgment.
    • Exam Question Potential: “Can a High Court grant bail under PMLA without explicitly recording a finding that the accused is not guilty?” (Answer: No, per Kanhaiya Prasad).
  • history– The “Twin Conditions” (Public Prosecutor must oppose + Court must be satisfied accused is not guilty) make PMLA bail extremely difficult. The 2021 paper asked about the Nikesh Tarachand judgment which struck it down, but the Vijay Madanlal (2022) judgment revived it.
  • Prediction: In 2025, expect a question on Section 45 in light of the Vijay Madanlal judgment confirming its validity.

9. Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement (May 2025)

  • Relevance: HIGH
  • Why? It deals with “Supply of Documents” (Evidence/Fair Trial).
    • The PYQ Connection: The exam often asks about the rights of the accused (e.g., 2021 Q40 regarding electronic evidence). This case establishes a new right: access to “un-relied documents” (documents ED seized but hid from the charge sheet).

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *