2023 (9) TMI 1143 - HC - Money Laundering

Legal arrest or not - grounds of arrest need to be orally informed or given in writing - requirement to comply with mandate of Section 19(1) of PMLA or not - violation of fundamental rights - denial of right to consult - HELD THAT - The reading of Para 458 and 459 which has been relied upon by both the parties makes it clear that the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT inter alia held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, it is sufficient compliance of the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It has also been inter alia held that it is enough if ED at the time of arrest contemporaneously discloses the grounds of such arrest to such person. Thus it cannot be said that the law laid down in V. Senthil Balaji is any way per incurium or irreconcilable with the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. However, as has been held and relied upon by the Hon ble Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji 2023 (8) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT that the decision of a court cannot be read like a statute out of context and in ignorance of the requisite provisions. The question is that whether this meaning as given in Black Laws Dictionary has to be taken literally in the present case. The service of the pleadings in a civil case are entirely different in nature and the law has to be interpreted as a whole and it cannot be taken out of context. In the present case, we are dealing with a situation where the arrestee is accused of a serious offence under PMLA. Any sensitive information disclosed prematurely in such cases may hamper the case of the prosecution/investigating agency. The orders passed by learned Special Judge on 28.06.2023 whereby he found sufficient material on the record and recorded a finding that the investigating agency has complied with the provisions of law while arresting the applicant accused this judgement rather favours the ED. There is no violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner. There is nothing or the record to suggest that petitioner has been denied right to consult and defended by legal practitioner - there is nothing on record to suggest that reason to believe as required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA was not recorded in writing and, therefore, it cannot be held that petitioner was arrested illegally - petitioner here failed to show that the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether grounds of arrest need to be orally informed or given in writing?
2. Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated by not being informed/served the grounds of his arrest, thereby denying him the right to consult and be defended by his legal practitioner?
3. Whether the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated by subjecting him to an illegal arrest contrary to the procedure established by law?
4. Whether the petitioner's arrest is contrary to Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), thereby violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether grounds of arrest need to be orally informed or given in writing?
The court held that the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA has to be followed in letter and spirit. In this case, the grounds of arrest were duly given and notified to the petitioner, and he endorsed the same in writing under his signature. The core issue is of being "informed" and "as soon as." If it has been duly notified and brought to the notice at the time of arrest and further disclosed in detail in the remand application, it amounts to being duly informed and served.

Issue 2: Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated by not being informed/served the grounds of his arrest, thereby denying him the right to consult and be defended by his legal practitioner?
The court found no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he was denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.

Issue 3: Whether the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated by subjecting him to an illegal arrest contrary to the procedure established by law?
The court held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the reason to believe, as required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, was not recorded in writing. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was arrested illegally.

Issue 4: Whether the petitioner's arrest is contrary to Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), thereby violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
The court found that the petitioner failed to show that his arrest was in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA.

Conclusion:
The petition along with pending applications was dismissed. The court emphasized that the grounds of arrest were duly informed to the petitioner, and there was sufficient compliance with the legal requirements under Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.