2020 (8) TMI 573 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Release of petitioner from Jail - allegation of extortion - keeping in jail custody beyond the period the maximum sentence which could be awarded pertaining to alleged offence though he has been remanded in judicial custody by a judicial order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction - judicial order of remand - valid order of remand beyond the period of maximum sentence could have been awarded to the accused (the petitioner) in view of the protection provided under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India or not - period of custody in jail. Maintainability of application - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT - There is no absolute bar to entertain the writ application in the event of availability of alternative remedy subject to the condition mentioned herein above. If the issue falls under the aforesaid heading then the alternative remedy cannot be invoked as a bar for entertainment of the writ application and the court would adjudicate the dispute raised by the parties. Issuance of writ of mandamus in the shape of habeaus corpus giving direction to the court below to release from the judicial custody - HELD THAT - The habeas corpus is a latin word which means to provide the body . A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine, if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. A habeas corpus petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent who holds the defendant in custody. It can be exercised pertaining extradition processes used - the extension of benefit would be granted to the accused during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial with respect to other cases but, in the event, the accused has been found guilty and has been awarded sentence, till the expiry of the period of sentence, he will not be granted relief of set off with respect to other criminal cases. Admittedly, the petitioner is not only in custody with respect to present case rather with respect to other cases also and with respect to two cases, still he has not been granted bail and, as such, he is in jail custody in respect of aforesaid two cases also. This Court only places reliance on the declaration made by the petitioner as well as to the extent the Union of India has brought the fact to the notice of this Court - Though the petitioner has already suffered maximum punishment of seven years, so in the present case lodged under the PML Act, he cannot be kept in judicial custody but, because in two cases in which he is still in jail with respect to valid order of remand, in such circumstances, he cannot be released from jail custody exercising the power of habeas corpus but, this Court observes that after calculating the period of sentence in terms of Section 31 and 428 of the Cr.P.C., if the petitioner has completed seven years of jail custody, which is the maximum period he can be sentenced in this case, in such situation, he cannot be kept in jail custody with respect to the present case but, he cannot be set free from the jail on account of valid judicial order of remand with respect to two other cases. It will not be appropriate for this Court to straightway give direction for release of the petitioner from the jail custody rather he should take proper steps in accordance with law - Application disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention beyond the maximum sentence period.
2. Validity of judicial remand orders in light of constitutional protections.
3. Calculation of detention period under Sections 31 and 428 of the Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Detention Beyond the Maximum Sentence Period:

The petitioner argued that he should be released from Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna, as he had already completed the maximum sentence of seven years under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act). The petitioner cited Section 20(1) of the Constitution of India and the second proviso to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to support his claim. The court noted that the maximum sentence under Section 4 of the PML Act is seven years unless the proceeds of crime relate to offenses specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, in which case it extends to ten years. The petitioner contended that none of the offenses he was charged with fell under paragraph 2 of Part A, hence the maximum sentence should be seven years.

2. Validity of Judicial Remand Orders in Light of Constitutional Protections:

The court examined whether the judicial remand orders could be considered valid beyond the maximum sentence period, given the protections under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 20(1) protects individuals from being subjected to a penalty greater than that which could be inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense. Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The court highlighted that habeas corpus is a procedural writ to secure the release of a person unlawfully detained. However, it emphasized that habeas corpus would not be applicable if the detention is under a valid judicial order.

3. Calculation of Detention Period Under Sections 31 and 428 of the Cr.P.C.:

The court analyzed Sections 31 and 428 of the Cr.P.C. to determine how the detention period should be calculated. Section 31 allows for consecutive sentences unless directed otherwise by the court, while Section 428 provides for the set-off of the period of detention undergone during the investigation, inquiry, or trial against the term of imprisonment imposed on conviction. The court referred to the judgments in Atul Manubhai Parekh v. CBI and Prabhu Sah v. State of Bihar, which clarified that the period of pre-trial detention in various cases cannot be counted for set-off in respect of a subsequent conviction. The court concluded that the petitioner could not be granted relief under habeas corpus as he was under valid judicial remand orders in other cases.

Conclusion:

The court found that although the petitioner had completed the maximum sentence of seven years under the PML Act, he could not be released due to valid remand orders in other cases. The writ of habeas corpus was deemed inapplicable as the detention was under valid judicial orders. The court directed the petitioner to seek appropriate relief through the proper legal channels.

← Previous Next →