2010 (5) TMI 906 - HC - Money Laundering

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure operation.
2. Validity of the arrest under Section 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases.
4. Petitioner's claim of false implication and torture.
5. Legality of continued judicial custody and remand orders.
6. Petitioner's request for habeas corpus and other reliefs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Search and Seizure Operation:
On 24th September 2009, a search operation was conducted at the petitioner's residence by the Directorate of Enforcement, resulting in the recovery of Rs. 12,50,000 in Indian currency and some foreign currency. The petitioner was interrogated and his statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 5th and 6th December 2009. The petitioner alleged that the officials, unable to find incriminating material, sought to implicate him under the PML Act, leading to another search on 5th December 2009 by the NCB and Directorate of Enforcement.

2. Validity of the Arrest under Section 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act:
The petitioner was arrested on 6th December 2009 under Sections 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act, which pertain to external dealings in narcotic drugs and financing illicit traffic. The respondents alleged the petitioner's involvement in financing narcotic drug activities globally. The petitioner denied these allegations, claiming no recovery of drugs or money linked to such activities.

3. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, arguing that as a Non-Resident Indian residing in Dubai, the provisions of Sections 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act were inapplicable. The court noted that Section 24 deals with unauthorized external trade in narcotic drugs, and Section 27A pertains to financing illicit traffic. The court observed that the definition of "illicit traffic" under Section 2(viiia) is broad, covering various activities, including financing. The court found that the material collected indicated a possible role of the petitioner in financing illicit traffic, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge.

4. Petitioner's Claim of False Implication and Torture:
The petitioner alleged false implication and torture during custody, claiming he was forced to sign blank papers and dictated statements. However, the court did not delve into these claims in detail, focusing instead on the jurisdictional issue and the legality of the remand orders.

5. Legality of Continued Judicial Custody and Remand Orders:
The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Special Judge, NDPS, with the remand extended periodically. The court noted that the Special Judge had given detailed reasons for the remand, considering the allegations and material presented by the prosecution. The petitioner had not challenged these remand orders through appropriate legal channels but instead filed the present writ petition.

6. Petitioner's Request for Habeas Corpus and Other Reliefs:
The petitioner initially sought a writ of habeas corpus for release from custody and quashing of proceedings under Sections 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act. However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner confined the writ petition to challenging the arrest memo on jurisdictional grounds. The court, after hearing arguments, concluded that the proceedings were not ex-facie without jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the remand orders through proper legal channels.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, and the legality of the remand orders. The petitioner was advised to challenge the remand orders through appropriate legal proceedings if desired. No orders as to costs were made.

← Previous Next →