9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby pervasive breach is caused to the mandatory provisions. The argument, if any, as addressed before this Court by the learned ASG concerned, that the said accompanying of the accused in the vehicles, was only in pursuance to summons, becoming issued upon them, for ensuring that thereby, they are interrogated at the E.D. headquarters located at Delhi, is but also liable to be rejected - The reasons for rejecting the above argument, but is again planked, upon the trite evident fact, that unless the accused had willingly accompanied the E.D. officials concerned, thus in their private vehicles or in the vehicle of their relatives, thereupon theirs in the above mode of theirs accompanying the E.D. officials to the E.D. headquarters, located at Delhi, would be construed to be theirs thereby then, thus becoming unlawfully restrained. The above argument, cannot become accepted by this Court, in view of the mandate recorded by the Hon ble Apex Court in case titled as V. Senthil Balaji V. State Represented by Deputy Dikrector and Others [ 2023 (8) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein, it has been expostulated, that when material, does emerge rather suggestive that the parameters laid t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since both the writ petitions arise from a common FIR, besides when in both the writ petitions a challenge is made to the remand orders made by the learned trial Judge concerned. Moreover, when in both the writ petitions a common relief is espoused qua the petitioners becoming released from judicial custody, therefore, both the writ petitions are amenable for becoming decided through a common verdict. 2. The petitioners became arrested and also became remanded to judicial custody through an order made on 28.10.2023, by the Remandee Court concerned. Therefore, it has to be determined whether the arrest of the petitioners was terms of the relevant provisions embodied in Sections 17-A, 18(1), and, in Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002 ). 3. In the above regard, it is necessary to hereinafter extract the provisions (supra), which do become extracted hereinafter. 17. Search and seizure. (1) xxx (a) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of crime are kept; 18. Sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal Nos. 3051-52 of 2023 titled as Pankaj Bansal Versus Union of Indian and others , thus any pervasive breach became hence caused to the mandatory statutory provisions (supra). Moreover, whether the restraint or arrest as became encumbered, upon the accused on 27.10.2023, is liable to be pronounced to be completely non est or illegal. Resultantly, whether the challenged orders of remand are to be declared to be perfunctory and mechanically made, besides whether the petitioners are entitled to theirs being released from judicial custody. 5. In rendering an answer to the above, the learned Senior counsels appearing for the respective petitioners have made the hereinafter submissions: a) That in view of the above manner of restraint being caused upon the petitioners on 27.10.2023, thereby irrespective of theirs becoming formally arrested on 28.10.2023, through the drawing of arrest memo, does yet constitute theirs being rather arrested on 27.10.2023. Since on 27.10.2023 no grounds of arrest become supplied to them, therefore it is argued that thereby breach is caused to the statutory provisions (supra). b) In making the above submissions, the learned Senior counsels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners, therefore he submits, that the date of the making of the formal arrest, of the present petitioners, through an arrest memo becoming drawn on 28.10.2023, rather becomes the relevant date, especially for making an adjudication, whether on the said date, there were any breach caused to the mandatory provisions (supra). b) He further submits, that when as such, on the said date of the accused becoming formally arrested i.e. on 28.10.2023, both of them became supplied with the memo of arrest, and, also reasons to believe, that they had committed the offences embodied in the Act of 2002. Therefore, he submits that there is no flagrant breach caused to the mandatory provisions (supra), nor the petitioners are entitled to any relief becoming accorded to them. 46. The word 'arrest' is derived from the French word 'Arreter' meaning to stop or stay and signifies a restraint of the person. Lexicologically, the meaning of the word 'arrest' is given in various dictionaries depending upon the circumstances in which the said expression is used. One of us, (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. as he then was being the Judge of the High Court of Madras) in Ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar bearing Registration Number: CH 0004. Mr. Pranav Gupta asked the said Officials for any Summons that may be issued to him for his appearance at any Office of the Enforcement Directorate on the said day, i.e. on 27.10.2023. Mr. Pranav Gupta also said that he will come on his own to their Office on the date and at the time that may be mentioned on such Summons. However, the Officials coaxed Mr. Pranav Gupta to accompany them immediately. d) That since prior thereto summons, on the same date became issued upon the accused, therefore, he forcefully contends that the said accompanying s of the accused concerned, respectively in vehicle(s), which were either seized or owned by the E.D., were only meant for the purpose of interrogation, and, was not construable to be causing their arrest. Contrarily, rather the import thereof, is that, the accused were in pursuance thereto taken to the E.D. headquarters for theirs becoming interrogated there. Therefore, he argues that the date of the accused being formally arrested through an arrest memo of 28.10.2023 becomes the relevant date, for adjudging whether then any breach was caused to the mandatory provisions (supra). He emphasizes th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectively in the seized car or in the car belonging to them. Therefore, the said manner of the accused accompanying the E.D. officials, does tantamount to theirs being then unlawfully restrained, and, as such, the accompanying of the accused in the said vehicles, thus on 27.10.2023 but also becomes the actual date of theirs being, thus arrested then. However, when on the said date the accused were not supplied with the grounds of arrest or the reasons to believe, that they have committed offences punishable under the Act of 2002. Consequently, thereby pervasive breach is caused to the mandatory provisions (supra). 14. The argument, if any, as addressed before this Court by the learned ASG concerned, that the said accompanying of the accused in the vehicles (supra), was only in pursuance to summons, becoming issued upon them, for ensuring that thereby, they are interrogated at the E.D. headquarters located at Delhi, is but also liable to be rejected. 15. The reasons for rejecting the above argument, but is again planked, upon the trite evident fact, that unless the accused had willingly accompanied the E.D. officials concerned, thus in their private vehicles or in the vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above lapses. 18. However, the above argument, cannot become accepted by this Court, in view of the mandate recorded by the Hon ble Apex Court in case titled as V. Senthil Balaji V. State Represented by Deputy Dikrector and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 934, wherein, it has been expostulated, that when material, does emerge rather suggestive that the parameters laid thereins, relating to application of judicial mind by the learned trial Judge concerned, to the makings of the relevant statutory breaches but become infringed, thus in his making the impugned order of remand, as such, upon, the vice of non-application of mind rather emerging, thus planked, upon breach being caused to the mandate of Section 19 of the Act of 2002, thereby the orders of remand are illegal. 19. In consequence, it has been also propounded therein, that thereby for the above vices ingraining the orders of remand, thereby the said impugned orders of remand can be quashed, and, set aside, rather than theirs being construed to be condoning, the above deep and pervasive mandatory statutory lapses, as became made by the officials of the E.D. 20. In view of the above, this Court quashes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
