9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1651 - HC - Money LaunderingDoE not complied with the requirements of the law - endorsement by the Petitioner s husband on the arrest memo to the effect that he has been informed of the grounds of his arrest - Held that - The legal position as on date is governed by the decision of this court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India (2017 (12) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT). It cannot therefore be held that the DoE has not complied with the requirements of the law. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain Prayer A made in the present petition. It shall however be open to the Petitioner to urge any other ground concerning the legality of the arrest of the Petitioner s husband arrest before the Roster Bench which will examined prayer B. Prayer B of the petition challenges the validity of the order dated 6th August 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (PMLA), New Delhi whereby the custody of the Petitioner s husband has been extended by seven more days. To consider that prayer, the present petition be renumbered as a Criminal Revision Petition and be listed before the Roster Bench on 13th August 2018.
Issues:
1. Allegation of non-compliance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the arrest of petitioner's husband. 2. Interpretation of the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing. 3. Challenge of a decision before the Supreme Court. 4. Legal position based on previous judgments and pending matters. 5. Validity of the order extending custody of the petitioner's husband. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The petition seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging non-compliance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the arrest of the petitioner's husband. Specifically, it is claimed that the husband was taken by the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) without being informed of the grounds of arrest as required by law. Issue 2: The court reviewed the record presented by the DoE, which showed an endorsement by the petitioner's husband on the arrest memo indicating that he had been informed of the grounds of his arrest. However, a previous decision by the court highlighted the necessity of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing, diverging from a contrary view in another case. The matter was referred to a larger bench for consideration. Issue 3: The decision challenged by the DoE was taken to the Supreme Court, which transferred the writ petition to itself for further examination. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court for deliberation. Issue 4: Given the legal landscape shaped by previous judgments and the pending matter before the Supreme Court, the court determined that the current legal position aligns with a specific judgment. Consequently, it was held that the DoE had not violated the law in this instance, leading the court to decline the prayer related to the arrest's legality. Issue 5: The petition also contested the validity of an order extending the custody of the petitioner's husband. The court directed the renumbering of the petition as a Criminal Revision Petition to address this specific challenge and scheduled it for listing before the Roster Bench on a specified date for further examination.
|
