24. Burden of Proof.

-In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act-

a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority
or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in
money laundering; and

b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime
are involved in money-laundering.

51. Jurisdiction of authorities. -

(1) The authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions
conferred on, or, assigned, as the case may be, to such authorities by or under this Act or the rules
framed thereunder in accordance with such directions as the Central Government may issue for the
exercise of powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the authorities.

(2) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-section (1), the Central Government may have
regard to anyone or more of the following criteria, namely: -

(a) territorial area;

(b) classes of persons;

(c) classes of cases; and

(d) any other criterion specified by the Central Government in this behalf.

65. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply. -

The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation,
investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act.

This special law (PMLA), even as originally enacted, was not designed to confer an additional
responsibility or jurisdiction on the police. The broad structure of the law clearly indicated that the
legislature intended to deal with the menace of money-laundering outside the general regime for
dealing with the crimes. The acts constituting money-laundering generally have the facade of ordinary
business transactions. These are economic offences indulged in secrecy and stealth and their
detection requires expertise and specially trained personnel. A general power of scrutiny of business
transactions at large cannot be allowed to be undertaken for unearthing such activity. A probe of this
nature requires due circumspection in as much as the initial suspicions may not necessarily be correct.
A probe on the lines of investigative process by the police would perhaps generally not suit the special
demands of an investigation qua money-laundering.

The moot question considered by the court was as to whether the police have the power under
Sections 160 and 161 Cr. P.C. "to question a person who, then was or, in the future may incarnate as,
an accused person". Referring to earlier decisions reported as Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor,
AIR 1939 PC 47 and Mahabir Mandal Vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 1 SCC 748, the court ruled thus:

"36. ... We hold that "any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case" includes an accused person who fills that role because the police suppose him to have
committed the crime and must, therefore, be familiar with the facts. The supposition may later prove
a fiction but that does not repel the section. ... Moreover, the suppositions accused figures functionally
as a witness. "To be a witness", from a functional angle, is to impart knowledge in respect of a relevant
fact, and that is precisely the purpose of questioning the accused under Section 161 CrPC. The
dichotomy between "witnesses" and "accused" used as terms of art, does not hold good here ... The
appellant squarely fell within the interrogational ring. To hold otherwise is to hold up investigative
exercise, since questioning suspects is desirable for detection of crime and even protection of the
accused. Extreme positions may boomerang in law as in politics."

In the case of this Act, there is compelling state and public interest that is ought to be furthered. These
are, firstly, to deter economic offenders from evading the jurisdiction of Indian courts, secondly, to
bring to justice Fugitive Economic Offenders. These recurring incidences of fugitive escapes by
economic offenders have led to a sharp fall in investor confidence and the abuse of the due-process
of finance and business along with huge losses caused to the persons and companies of the country.

The subject speaks of its own importance, comprehending within its consequences nothing less than
the future and growth of the Indian economy that is pestered with these frivolous and fraudulent
misdeeds which have only led to harsh roadblocks in its trajectory of growth. The author submits that
this Act does therefore, pass muster the test of Constitutionality under Article 21 of the Constitution
in view of the compelling state and public interest furthered by this law.
There is no rule of international law which prevents States from extraditing in the absence of a treaty.
In many States, national legislation provides for the possibility of extraditing without a pre-existing
agreement. Sometimes, this is subject to the explicit condition of reciprocity.

In case titled V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1980(2) SCC 665) it has been held that:

"to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was
an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds
resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and
where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to
show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution
has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the
minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which
is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits thereon which the prosecution relies
cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of
criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in
furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing
an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy.

Applicable conventions and treaties regularly provide that extradition will proceed pursuant to the
laws of the requested State. While there is little variation with regard to the type of information which
the requesting State must submit, the applicable rules and procedures as well as evidentiary standards
may differ substantially between jurisdictions. In general, however, the request must identify the
person whose extradition is sought and specify why his or her surrender is wanted. Extradition treaties
and conventions, as well as bilateral agreements and national extradition laws, regularly require the
requesting State to submit: • the arrest warrant (either in the original or an authenticated copy) • the
text of the relevant laws (or a description of the law applying to the conduct imputed to the person
whose extradition is sought, particularly in the case of common law offences) • information which
permits the identification of the fugitive • a description of the allegations against the fugitive; or in
the case of a person already convicted, the judgment The above-listed elements are usually deemed
sufficient to support a positive decision on an extradition request in civil law countries, where the
requesting State is not normally required to provide any evidence to support the case against the
fugitive, although the requested State is typically entitled to seek further information if it considers it
necessary19. In some civil law countries, extradition legislation does require the requesting State to
submit evidence in support of the request.20 By contrast, common law countries have traditionally
required the requesting State to submit, in addition to the arrest warrant, evidence which must
amount to a prima facie case against the person whose extradition is being sought. In addition, under
the rules of evidence in force in many common law countries, only evidence presented in a certain
format – for example, sworn affidavits by direct witnesses – is admissible, while other types of
evidence, most notably, hearsay information, is excluded.

R. Subramanian vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (10.10.2018 - MADHC)

Furthermore, it is to be stated that if there are more than one offender, who have committed offence
or offences in the course of same transaction, the accused are to be tried together as envisaged under
Section 223 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, filing of subsequent complaint and the prayer of the prosecuting
agency to prosecute the offenders including the revision petitioner herein in the subsequent
complaint along with offenders arrayed in the earlier complaint cannot be said to be a procedure
which is alien to law or prejudice to the interest of the complaint.

Article 12.

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty
of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided
by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals
or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present
Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Article 13. An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled
therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where
compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against
his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the
competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.