2023 (7) TMI 381 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of writ of Habeas Corpus against an order of remand under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code - Illegal detention of the husband of the petitioner - it is alleged that the detenu had obtained money from third parties, promising jobs in the Transport Department and thereafter cheated them - HELD THAT - The medical bulletin issued by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Omandurar Government Estate is extracted. At this juncture, lightly and without any material, it cannot be doubted that the opinion of the doctors, when there has to be an emergent treatment. As prima facie, the detenu is in custody by judicial order of remand, there is no question of enlarging him on bail. He shall continue to be in judicial custody. The only question is whether he has to undergo an emergent treatment at the Omandurar Government Hospital itself or the hospital of their choice. In this regard, when the petitioner pleads that they have a regular physician at Cauvery Hospital, Chennai which is also a reputed hospital in Chennai, regarding the treatment in Cardiology, when the matter is concerning a life of an individual, the prayer on behalf of the detenu to undergo treatment at the hospital of their choice, at his own cost, can be acceded to even while he continues to be in judicial custody. But however, since there is a concern which is expressed on behalf of the respondents / Enforcement Directorate, even after shifting the detenu from the Omandurar Government Hospital to Cauvery Hospital, a panel of doctors constituted by the respondents, can also visit and examine the detenu and the medical records and the treatment which is being given to the detenu - the detenu is directed to be shifted to Cauvery Hospital, Chennai, for undergoing the emergency treatment as mentioned in the Medical Bulletin of the Omandurar Government MultiSpeciality Hospital, Chennai, dated 14/06/2023. Call the main Habeas Corpus Petition on 22.06.2023 for final disposal.

Summary

Issues:
Complaint about illegal detention of the petitioner's husband under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L.A.) without proper notice and grounds for arrest.

Judgment Details:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition alleging the illegal detention of her husband due to three criminal cases pending against him. The detenu was arrested under P.M.L.A. for alleged money fraud in promising jobs in the Transport Department. The petitioner claimed violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as the detenu was not informed about the grounds of arrest or allowed legal representation.

The Enforcement Directorate argued that the detenu was summoned earlier but challenged it, leading to the Supreme Court's decision to proceed with the case under P.M.L.A. Compliance with Section 19 of P.M.L.A. was emphasized, stating that the detenu's arrest was in accordance with the law.

The Court considered precedents and concluded that a Habeas Corpus Petition could be entertained if the remand was illegal or lacked jurisdiction. The key questions for consideration were the factual correctness of non-compliance grounds and whether they amounted to absolute illegality.

The Court entertained the Habeas Corpus Petition for further examination, directing the respondents to file a counter affidavit by a specified date. Additionally, due to the detenu's medical condition, a request was made to shift him to a private hospital for emergency bypass surgery. The Court allowed the detenu to be shifted to the chosen hospital for treatment, subject to examination by a panel of doctors appointed by the Enforcement Directorate.

The final hearing for the main Habeas Corpus Petition was scheduled for a later date to address all remaining issues comprehensively.