9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1494 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Legality of arrest of the Petitioner - gross violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India - legality of remand order - Whether ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India and Others 2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT can be made applicable to the present case? - HELD THAT - In the said case the Supreme Court was considering the effect of section 19(1) (2) of PMLA and as to the right of an arrestee to be furnished with the written grounds of arrest at the time of arrest. The Apex Court had observed on facts that the authorities under PMLA were providing information of grounds of arrest in varied methods in that at some places the grounds of arrest were informed orally and in some places they were being permitted to be read or were read out and in others written grounds of arrest were being furnished. After considering the effect of section 19(1) (2) of PMLA and coming to the conclusion that it was incumbent upon the authorities to record the reasons for arrest in writing as per section 19(1) the Supreme Court held that there was no reason why the authorities could not provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee. The Supreme Court had also reached the said conclusion keeping in view the power to initiate action under section 62 of PMLA against the officer concerned in case of noncompliance of the provisions of section 19 of PMLA while relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji vs. State Represented by Deputy Director and Ors 2023 (8) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT . The Supreme Court also considered the effect of section 45 of PMLA to conclude that the rights of the arrestee to obtain bail under the stringent conditions would not be possible unless the arrestee has correct and complete information with respect to his grounds of arrest - Another issue which was considered by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 19(1) of PMLA was with regard to the sensitive material which may be contained in the grounds of arrest. To that the Supreme Court had observed that such information/sensitive portions could always be redacted so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation. The grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest however furnishing of such grounds in written are not mandated by the UAPA. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal and also considering the stringent provisions of UAPA it would be advisable that the respondent henceforth provide grounds of arrest in writing though after redacting what in the opinion of the respondent would constitute sensitive material . This too would obviate as held by the Supreme Court any such challenge to the arrest as made in the present case. Legality of arrest and remand - HELD THAT - The entire arguments on facts in respect of the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings appear to be clearly at variance. So much so they are at times contradictory. The petitioner was at pains to demonstrate as to how the arrest itself was illegal in that the grounds of arrest were not informed or conveyed to him at the time of arrest. Whereas it is the categoric stand of the respondent that not only the grounds of arrest were informed to the petitioner orally the same was virtually conveyed in writing vide the Memo of Arrest. This fact has been asserted by the respondent in the counter affidavit signed and executed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. The contention regarding the remand order already having been passed at 6 A.M. the subsequent furnishing of the remand application and oral telephonic hearing provided to the counsel being an empty formality is also contradicted by the admissions of the petitioner in his petition. In that the petitioner himself submits that he was produced before the learned Special Judge between 6-6 30 A.M. and that it was at around 7 A.M. when according to the petitioner the remand proceedings were getting concluded that he sought and was granted permission to contact his counsel through a family member. That apart as already observed above the counsel was provided with the remand application as also was heard though telephonically by the learned Special Judge before passing the remand order. Keeping in view the gravity and the seriousness of the offences as also considering the fact that the individual right of life and personal liberty and freedom guaranteed under the Constitution of India are affected it appears appropriate to also consider as to where the Constitutional Courts are to lean in such circumstances - In the present case too the offences which are alleged fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and directly impact the stability integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security. It appears as of now that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed to the petitioner as soon as may be after the arrest and as such there does not appear to be any procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Section 43B of the UAPA or the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such the arrest are in accordance with law. Conclusion - Under the UAPA oral communication of grounds of arrest is sufficient and the Pankaj Bansal decision does not alter this requirement. This Court is of the considered opinion that the remand order is sustainable in law in the given circumstances - Petition dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legality of Arrest
Issue 2: Validity of the Remand Order
Issue 3: Applicability of Pankaj Bansal Decision
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
|
