Supreme Court took a big decision in benami property case, now there will be no 3 years in jail
The Supreme Court rejected the provision of the law, the 2016 amendment in the Benami Act cannot be applied retrospectively
Taking a big decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court has made a big change regarding the Benami Transactions Act. The Court has held it unconstitutional as per Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. This clause is clearly arbitrary. The court said, the 2016 amendment to the Benami Act cannot be applied retrospectively. Along with this, the Supreme Court has termed the amendment made by the Modi government in 2016 as illegal.
The government also rejected the 2016 amendments to the Benami Soda Act, 1988.
Let us tell you that a bench of Chief Justice NV Raman, Justices CT Ravikumar and Hema Kohli, hearing the case, also struck down the amendments of the Modi government’s 2016 Benami Soda Act, 1988. Along with this, the court repealed the law of 3 years imprisonment for benami property. The court also said that the right to confiscate the property would not be applicable retrospectively. In old cases, action will not be taken under the 2016 law. Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act states that whoever indulges in benami transactions shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with fine or with both.
The 2016 amendment is based on probabilities, but cannot be applied to past cases
A bench headed by Chief Justice NV Raman pronounced the verdict while hearing a petition filed by the Center against the order of the Kolkata High Court. The Calcutta High Court in its judgment held that the 2016 amendment is based on probabilities, but cannot be applied to past cases. Section 3 of the Benami Transactions Act deals with the issue of benami transactions and its sub-section (2) provides that a person who is found to be involved in the business of benami property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years. may be extended or with fine or with both. Under the 2016 amendment to the Act, an order for confiscation of benami property was also part of the provision.
(function (d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id))
return;
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src=”https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.2″;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
