LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Rana Ayyub vs Directorate of Enforcement

Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2023 INSC 101Decided 7 Feb 2023
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2023
V. Ramasubramanian · J.B. Pardiwala · Pankaj Mithal

Background

Journalist Rana Ayyub ran three online crowdfunding campaigns on the "Ketto" platform between April 2020 and September 2021 during the pandemic. A private complainant in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, lodged an FIR alleging cheating and misappropriation of the funds, and the Enforcement Directorate then filed a money-laundering complaint in the Special PMLA Court at Ghaziabad, which summoned her in November 2022. Her bank account into which the donations were received is in Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra. She approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, arguing on the sole ground that only a Special Court in Maharashtra, where the alleged offence of money-laundering was committed, could try the case, not the Ghaziabad court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified two points of law. First, reading Section 44(1)(a) and (c) of the PMLA, it held that the trial of the underlying "scheduled" (predicate) offence must follow the money-laundering trial and be held before the PMLA Special Court for the area where money-laundering was committed, not the other way round. Second, on where money-laundering is "committed", the Court explained that Section 3 covers six distinct activities (concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting or claiming as untainted), and the offence is committed in every area where any one of those activities happens. Here, Navi Mumbai was only the place of "possession"; the "acquisition" of funds happened online from donors spread across the country, so whether any part of the offence occurred within Ghaziabad's jurisdiction is a disputed question of fact that can only be settled on evidence at trial. Such a factual question cannot be decided in a writ petition, so the petitioner was given liberty to raise the jurisdiction objection before the Special Court itself.

Lesson Learnt

Under the PMLA, a money-laundering case can be tried wherever any link in the chain (receiving, holding, hiding or using the alleged tainted money) took place, which can be several places at once when money moves online. Objections about which court has territorial jurisdiction usually turn on facts, and must be raised before the trial court rather than short-circuited through a writ petition.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Rana Ayyub vs Directorate of Enforcement – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware