2016 (12) TMI 1014 - HC - Money Laundering

Money laundering - bail application - nature of offence - Held that - The offence alleged against the Petitioner is of money-laundering. The report submitted to the Special Court, on the basis of which the Special Court has taken cognizance vide its order dated 27th April 2016, reveals that M/s. K.S. Chamankar Enterprises secured RTO Development Project amounting to ₹ 4,700/- Crores from the Maharashtra Government by misrepresentation and fraud and in connivance with the public servants and the Petitioner, who was the then PWD Minister of Maharashtra State. As a result, the State Government has suffered loss to the tune of ₹ 840.16 Crores; whereas, the Petitioner and the others have reaped undue gain of the said amount. The Special Court has observed the reasons why it found that cognizance needs to be taken of the offence, having regard to the specific allegation not only in respect of generation of the proceeds of crime, but also in its laundering and thereafter issued the process. Thus, there was sufficient material before the arresting authority for the reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w. Section 4 of the PML Act. If for such a serious offence in view of this prima facie material, Respondent No.2 had reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of moneylaundering and hence Respondent No.2 arrests the Petitioner and the Special Court remands him to Custody, then neither the arrest nor the detention of the Petitioner can be called as illegal to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the very object of the PML Act would be frustrated, if the Petitioner projects some loophole or infirmity in the implementation of the provisions of the PML Act, in order to get his release from detention, that too by invoking such extra-ordinary remedy, circumventing the very specific provisions of bail, as laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act. After all, the provisions of PML Act or any Statute are to be interpreted in order to advance the substantial cause of justice and not to curtail the same in any way or to create an hindrance in achieving the said cause. If the provisions of PML Act are to be interpreted, therefore, in the proper perspective, then, we do not find that there was any such lacunae, infirmity or, much less, illegality in the arrest and detention of the Petitioner, for this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction for release of the Petitioner. Thus, none of the contention raised by the Petitioner to challenge his arrest as illegal holds merit. As a result, the Petitioner has failed to show that his arrest is wholly illegal, null and void and further failed to show that the Special Court has passed the Remand Order mechanically without application of mind, his petition for Habeas Corpus cannot be maintainable. Hence, we do not find this is a fit case either to admit, much less, to grant the relief, as prayed for.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Arrest: Whether the arrest of the Petitioner was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the PML Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
2. Authorization of Arresting Officer: Whether the officer who arrested the Petitioner was authorized under the PML Act.
3. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards: Whether the arrest complied with constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
4. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition: Whether the Petition for Habeas Corpus is maintainable given that the Petitioner was in judicial custody authorized by a competent court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Arrest:
The Petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as the offenses under the PML Act are non-cognizable, requiring compliance with Section 155(1) of the CrPC, which mandates obtaining a Magistrate's order before arrest. The Court, however, held that the PML Act is a complete code in itself, and Section 19 of the PML Act, which allows for arrest based on the reasonable belief of an authorized officer, does not require compliance with the CrPC provisions. The Court also noted that the PML Act provides an overriding effect over inconsistent laws, including the CrPC.

2. Authorization of Arresting Officer:
The Petitioner contended that the arrest by the Assistant Director was unauthorized as no specific notification was produced showing such authorization. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 19 of the PML Act explicitly includes the Assistant Director as an authorized officer. The Court also referred to notifications and internal orders confirming the Assistant Director's authority to arrest under the PML Act.

3. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards:
The Petitioner claimed that his arrest violated Article 22 of the Constitution, which requires informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and producing them before a Magistrate within 24 hours. The Court found that the Petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest as evidenced by his signature on the arrest order. The Court also noted that the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court within the stipulated time, thus complying with Article 22.

4. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition:
The Court emphasized that a Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable when a person is in judicial custody authorized by a competent court unless the remand order is without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The Court found that the Special Court had applied its mind and passed detailed remand orders, thereby validating the Petitioner’s custody. The Court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Kanu Sanyal and Manubhai R.P., to support its conclusion that the writ petition was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the arrest of the Petitioner was legal and authorized, and all procedural and constitutional safeguards were duly followed. The remand orders passed by the Special Court were found to be detailed and based on proper application of mind, thus validating the Petitioner’s detention. The Petition for Habeas Corpus was deemed not maintainable, and the rule was discharged.

← Previous Next →