#Section 42

The Delhi High Court struck down an Appellate Tribunal interim order that sought to channel frozen proceeds of crime to settle liabilities of another company, holding such diversion beyond the scope of Section 42 of the PMLA. This bars authorities from using seized assets to satisfy third-party debts, affecting enforcement actions against money-laundering suspects.

The Supreme Court ruled that in urgent narcotics raids, merely substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act satisfies procedural requirements, and Section 50’s notice-to-owner provision does not apply to vehicle searches. This narrows procedural safeguards for suspects and streamlines enforcement actions.

Rajasthan High Court rules that immediate police action under the NDPS Act, based on prior information, does not require written compliance under Section 42 if the contraband is recovered on the spot. The ruling dismisses the suspension of sentence application, reinforcing that procedural non-compliance does not vitiate search and seizure when action is prompt.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed that failure to record written grounds for a nighttime search under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, coupled with the absence of independent witnesses despite proximity to a village, fatally undermines the prosecution’s case. This ruling reinforces that procedural compliance is not optional - it is the bedrock of lawful seizure and admissibility in drug cases, protecting citizens from arbitrary state power.

Delhi High Court clarifies that mere arbitration venue does not confer jurisdiction; seat must be agreed or determined. Section 42 vests exclusive control in court first approached where cause of action arises.