9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 309 - HC - Money LaunderingValidity of subsequent orders extending the remand - Money Laundering - illegal delivery of metal gold - whether the trial court was justified in remanding the Petitioner when he was already in custody in relation to another offence in ECIR/KLZO/-II/01/2021 in the Presidency Correctional Home, Kolkata? - HELD THAT - Section 267 provides a procedure to deal with a person who is alleged to have committed various offences. Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates a procedure where the court can require the presence of a person who is detained or confined in any other offence in any other jurisdiction. The investigation officer/agency may file an application under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. for issuance of a P.T. warrant directing the prison authorities where the accused lodged to be produced before the court in a case other than the one in which he is already in custody - Once the person is produced before the court pursuant to the issuance of the P.T. warrant, a question arises whether such a person can be again sent to judicial custody under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. by the court before which he was produced. The Petitioner was already in judicial custody in Kolkata. Therefore, the Respondent authority could not have directly arrested the Petitioner. On 22.12.2021, the Respondent sent a copy of the petition under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section 50 of the PMLA to the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home, Kolkata to be served upon the Petitioner herein. In the said petition, the Respondent authority stated that the Petitioner has been arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA. The said petition was served upon the Petitioner on 23.12.2021and was duly acknowledged by him. The custody of the Petitioner could only be sought after he was produced pursuant to the P.T. warrant under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. Once he was produced, the trial court considered the fact that he was formally arrested in prison and considering the application under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. remanded him to judicial custody. According to this Court, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 remanding the Petitioner. The only question before this Court was whether the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 remanding the accused was illegal. According to this Court, the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 and the subsequent orders extending the remand are legal and valid. Therefore, the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed - Criminal Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 11.02.2022 and subsequent remand orders. 2. Compliance with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 3. Applicability of Section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for issuing P.T. warrants. 4. Validity of judicial custody under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Allegations of abuse of process and non-consideration of previous court orders. 6. Delay in issuing summons and its implications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Order Dated 11.02.2022 and Subsequent Remand Orders: The primary issue is whether the trial court was justified in remanding the Petitioner, who was already in custody for another offence. The court examined if the trial court's order dated 11.02.2022 and subsequent orders extending the remand were legal and valid. The court concluded that the impugned order and subsequent remand orders were legal and valid, dismissing the criminal petition. 2. Compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA: Section 19 of the PMLA outlines the power and procedure for arrest. The Petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as Section 19 was not complied with. The court noted that the Respondent authority had sent a detailed petition under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section 50 of the PMLA to the Petitioner, informing him of the grounds of arrest and the material in possession. The court found that the requirements of Section 19 were satisfied, as the Petitioner was informed of the reasons for his arrest and the material was forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority. 3. Applicability of Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. for Issuing P.T. Warrants: Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. allows for the issuance of P.T. warrants to produce a person detained in another jurisdiction. The court referenced previous judgments to clarify that a person already in judicial custody can be produced in another case under Section 267. The court found that the Respondent had followed the correct procedure by formally arresting the Petitioner in prison and then seeking his production under Section 267. 4. Validity of Judicial Custody under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.: The court examined whether a person already in judicial custody could be remanded to further judicial custody under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. The court cited relevant case law to conclude that once a formal arrest is made, the court can remand the accused under Section 167. The Petitioner was formally arrested in prison, and the trial court's decision to remand him to judicial custody was found to be legal. 5. Allegations of Abuse of Process and Non-Consideration of Previous Court Orders: The Petitioner contended that the Respondent's actions were vexatious and that previous court orders were not considered. The court reviewed the orders in Crl.P.No. 1130 of 2022 and W.P. No. 9926 of 2021 and found no stay on the investigation or proceedings in ECIR/HZO/08/2012. The court dismissed the allegations of abuse of process, noting that the same grounds were already raised in W.P. No. 9926 of 2021. 6. Delay in Issuing Summons and Its Implications: The Petitioner argued that the investigation was delayed and that summons were issued after five years. The court noted that the delay and other related contentions were already part of W.P. No. 9926 of 2021, which sought to quash the proceedings in ECIR/HZO/08/2012. The court did not find the delay to be a valid ground to quash the remand orders. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned order dated 11.02.2022 and subsequent remand orders were legal and valid. The criminal petition was dismissed, and all miscellaneous petitions pending in the Criminal Petition were closed.
|
