2025 (4) TMI 694 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Judicial interpretation and consideration - whether it is obligatory for the arresting officer / agency to produce the arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest or the term nearest Magistrate extends to jurisdictional Magistrate in relation to production of the accused within 24 hours of his arrest? - HELD THAT - Before search and seizure the authorised officer shall have the reasons to believe about the existence of clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 17(1) of the PMLA. Subsequent search and recovery of tainted money records or documents emboldens the authorized officer to arrest the offender in terms of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA. The petitioner has not disputed that the arresting officer recorded reasons for such believe under Section 19 (1) of the PMLA in black and white prepared and served copy of ground of arrest to the accused and entire fact was elaborately stated in the remand order for consideration of the learned CJM Patna. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the application filed by the ED and the documents regarding reasons to believe grounds of arrest etc. Therefore failure on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to state the magic word reasons to believe contemplated in Section 19 (1) of the PMLA ought to be considered as an inadvertent omission and not an error which touches the root of the case. It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner did not make any prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Therefore this Court does not have any opportunity to deal with such an issue. Only issue which has been raised by the petitioner in course of his elaborate argument is that the detention of the accused is illegal being violative of Articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 187 of the BNSS. Requirement of production of the accused before the nearest Magistrate in the locality where his arrest comes into play when a person who after arrest is required to be produced before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate is detained in a place which is far away from that jurisdiction and therefore cannot be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours as mandated both by Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and by Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now Section 58 of the BNSS. In such circumstances he will be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate together with a copy of the entries in the diary. Therefore even before a Magistrate before whom a transit remand application is filed the mandatory requirement of Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C. now Section 187 of BNSS is that a copy of the entries in the case diary should also be produced. It is on the basis of the entries in the case diary under Section 167 (2) such nearest Judicial Magistrate while passing an order authorizing detention of person arrested for a term not exceeding 15 days in a whole. Where he has no jurisdiction to try the case and he finds further detention unnecessary he may order the accused to be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. In the instant case the accused was produced within 24 hours of his arrest. Therefore the requirement of his production before the nearest Magistrate of the place of arrest was not mandatory. The right of an accused rests on the Constitutional and Statutory requirement of his production before the Magistrate within 24 hours. If the arresting officer finds that he may be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours there is no necessity to produce the accused before the nearest Magistrate where he is arrested. The fundamental right of the accused is said to be violated if he is detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before the Magistrate. Conclusion - i) The nearest Magistrate in Article 22(2) does not exclusively mean the geographically closest Magistrate but includes the jurisdictional Magistrate if production within 24 hours is feasible. ii) The writ jurisdiction is not applicable to challenge remand orders unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory rights. iii) The remand order issued by the CJM Patna is valid as it complied with the necessary legal requirements under the PMLA. Petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

- Whether Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India mandates the production of an arrested person before the "nearest Magistrate" within 24 hours of arrest, or if production before the "jurisdictional Magistrate" suffices when achievable within the stipulated time.

- Whether the remand order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Patna, is amenable to writ jurisdiction, particularly when statutory requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were allegedly not considered.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Article 22(2) and Production Before Magistrate:

- Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires that a person arrested be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time. Section 187 of the BNSS (akin to Section 167 Cr.P.C.) supports this requirement.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted "nearest Magistrate" as the Magistrate geographically closest to the place of arrest, not necessarily the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court emphasized the constitutional safeguard intended to prevent unnecessary detention.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner was arrested in Kolkata and flown to Patna, where he was produced before the CJM, Patna, within 24 hours. The Court found that the production before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the stipulated time did not violate Article 22(2).

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the constitutional provision and found that the production within 24 hours before the jurisdictional Magistrate was sufficient, as the travel time was accounted for.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued for a strict interpretation of "nearest Magistrate," while the respondent contended that production before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours was compliant. The Court favored the latter interpretation.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the requirement of Article 22(2) was not violated as the petitioner was produced within 24 hours before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Remand Order and Writ Jurisdiction:

- Legal Framework and Precedents: The PMLA and Section 19 require an arrested person's production before a Magistrate with reasons to believe in the person's guilt. The Court also considered precedents regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction over judicial orders.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the writ jurisdiction is not typically applicable to challenge remand orders unless they violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner challenged the remand order on grounds of non-compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA. The Court found that the CJM, Patna, had considered the necessary documents and reasons for arrest.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court found no violation of statutory or constitutional provisions in the remand order, as the CJM had the necessary information to justify the remand.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the CJM failed to consider the statutory requirements of the PMLA, while the respondent maintained that the remand was valid. The Court agreed with the respondent.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the remand order was valid and not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as no fundamental rights were violated.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Court held that "nearest Magistrate" in Article 22(2) does not exclusively mean the geographically closest Magistrate but includes the jurisdictional Magistrate if production within 24 hours is feasible.

- The Court established that writ jurisdiction is not applicable to challenge remand orders unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory rights.

- The Court determined that the remand order issued by the CJM, Patna, was valid, as it complied with the necessary legal requirements under the PMLA.

- The Court emphasized the importance of producing an arrested person within 24 hours to safeguard personal liberty, aligning with the constitutional mandate.

- The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit, and the Court found no violation of constitutional or statutory provisions in the arrest and remand process.