2024 (3) TMI 1181 - SCH - Money Laundering

Legality of arrest and consequential payment of compensation - HELD THAT - Earlier order records that the issue of legality and validity of the arrest of the appellants as well as the other questions will be gone into in these appeals. The said questions need not be decided in these appeals. Therefore legal contentions arising in these appeals are left open to be decided in appropriate cases. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include legality of arrest, cooperation for investigation, remand, and payment of compensation.

Legality of Arrest and Cooperation for Investigation:
The Supreme Court heard the parties and noted that the appellants had appeared before the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate at Hyderabad and cooperated for investigation as directed by the court. The Enforcement Directorate confirmed that if the appellants continued to cooperate, remand would not be sought. Consequently, the court decided not to implement clause (i) of paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. The appellants, through their counsel, stated that they were not pressing for a decision on the legality of their arrest and any consequential payment of compensation. Therefore, the issue of legality and validity of the arrest was not decided in these appeals, leaving the legal contentions open for determination in appropriate cases.

Survival of Criminal Revision Case:
The court further observed that Criminal Revision Case No.378/2023 would not survive due to the developments in the case. As a result, the requirement for the appellants to appear before the Designated Court on the date when the matter was scheduled for orders on the prayer for remand did not arise. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of with the following directions:
a. The appellants were directed to appear before the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate at Hyderabad as and when called upon and to cooperate for investigation.
b. Clause (i) of paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment was deemed not to survive based on the statement made by the Additional Solicitor General.
c. Similarly, clause (ii) was also considered not to survive based on the statement made by the senior counsel/learned counsel for the appellants.
d. Given the directions provided, even clause (iii) was determined not to survive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and statements made by the parties, disposed of the appeals based on the directions provided regarding cooperation for investigation, legality of arrest, and the survival of certain clauses in the impugned judgment. The court decided not to delve into the legality and validity of the arrest in these appeals, leaving the legal contentions open for future determination in suitable cases.