2021 (10) TMI 201 - HC - Money Laundering

Legality of arrest - validity in terms of A. 22 (2) of Constitution of India r/w s. 57 CrPC - application moved by the petitioner herein to declare the arrest of the petitioner as illegal was dismissed without any reason - what is the time of arrest of petitioner is 8 30 PM of 03.08.2021 or 7 55 PM of 03.08.2021? - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the search started on 03.08.2021 in the premises of the petitioner at 8 30 AM and it continued till afternoon uptil 3 o clock and thereafter the petitioner was taken to office of respondent for recording of his statement. It was recorded till 7.55 PM when he was arrested. He was then produced on 04.08.2021 at about 4 PM before the learned Court. The question is whether he was produced before Court within 24 hours of his arrest. Deepak Mahajan 1994 (1) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT , Roshan Biwi 1983 (11) TMI 290 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and Harbhajan Singh 1968 (12) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY all in unison clarify the custody and arrest are not synonymous. In every arrest there is always a custody but in every custody there may not be arrest. Even otherwise, if one look at the scheme of PMLA it shows arrest needs to be made only under Section 19(1) of the Act after completion of process under Section 17(1) and 18(1) and the accused is to be produced before the concerned court within 24 hours of his arrest under Section 19(1). The arrest is only under Section 19(1) of the Act after the formalities under Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) are complete viz. the search and seizure is made and the officer has in his possession the material to proceed further. Once the person is arrested under Section 19(1) he needs to be produced before the Special Court within twenty four hours per Section 19(3) of the Act. Section 19(3) rather clarifies it is only after the arrest is made under Section 19(1), the person needs to be produced within twenty four hours before the Court. Admittedly, in this petition there is no challenge to this scheme of the Act hence the petitioner cannot allege his arrest made by following the above procedure is illegal. Admittedly per facts, the officers on the basis of information per Section 17(1) had entered the building at 8.30 AM; conducted search per Section 18(1) till 3 PM and recorded statements till 7.55 PM and then arrested him per Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner was thus produced within 24 hours before the court from the time of his arrest under Section 19(1) of the Act, per Section 19(3) of the Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest of the petitioner.
2. Compliance with the 24-hour rule for producing the petitioner before the magistrate.
3. Requirement for providing reasons in judicial orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the arrest of the petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest, arguing that he was effectively restrained at 8:30 AM on 03.08.2021 during a raid, although the arrest memo recorded the arrest time as 7:55 PM on the same day. The petitioner cited precedents such as Ashfak Hussain Allah Detha vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Ramu vs. State of Karnataka, and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, to argue that arrest commences with the restraint on liberty, not the time recorded by arresting officers. The court examined these precedents and clarified that the terms "custody" and "arrest" are not synonymous. The court held that the petitioner was formally arrested at 7:55 PM after the completion of search and seizure procedures under Sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the PMLA, and thus, the arrest was legal.

2. Compliance with the 24-hour rule for producing the petitioner before the magistrate:
The petitioner contended that he was not produced before the magistrate within 24 hours of his effective arrest at 8:30 AM. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and other cases to elucidate that arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA follows the completion of search and seizure procedures. The court found that the petitioner was arrested at 7:55 PM on 03.08.2021 and produced before the magistrate at 4 PM on 04.08.2021, adhering to the 24-hour rule as mandated by Section 19(3) of the PMLA.

3. Requirement for providing reasons in judicial orders:
The petitioner argued that the Special Judge's order dismissing his application did not provide any reasons, making it unreasoned and liable to be set aside. The petitioner cited Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh vs. The State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of giving reasons in judicial orders. The court acknowledged this principle but found that the Special Judge's order was consistent with the procedural requirements under the PMLA. The court concluded that the petitioner's arrest and subsequent judicial procedures were conducted in compliance with the law, and thus, the petition lacked merit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the arrest was legal and the petitioner was produced before the magistrate within the stipulated 24-hour period. The court also noted that the Special Judge's order was consistent with legal requirements, even though it lacked detailed reasoning. The petition and any pending applications were dismissed.