Brief Facts
- The appellants are the accused in complaints under Section 44 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’). The appellants have been denied the benefit of anticipatory bail by the impugned orders.
- The accused who were not arrested after registration of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) till the Special Court took cognizance under the PMLA of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The cognizance was taken on the complaints filed under Section 44 (1)(b). These are the cases where the Appellants did not appear before the Special Court after summons were served to them. The Special Court issued warrants for procuring their presence. After the warrants were issued, the Appellants applied for anticipatory bail before the Special Court. The applications were rejected.
- The High Court also rejected their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
- Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court, which protected the Appellants from arrest.
Issues
- Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC?
- If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on complaint u/s.44(1)(b), whether the Court should issue a summons to the accused or warrant?
- After a summons are issued u/s. 204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the PMLA on a complaint, if accused appears before the Special Court, would he be treated as in custody and is it necessary for him to apply for bail?
- In a case where the accused appears pursuant to a summons before the Special Court, whether the Special Court can grant exemption from personal appearance?
- If the accused does not appear after summons are served or does not appear on a subsequent date, whether the Special Court can issue warrant within its power?
- Whether the order accepting bonds u/s. 88 of the CrPC amounts to grant of bail?
- In a case where the accused has furnished bonds u/s. 88 of the CrPC, if he fails to appear on subsequent dates, whether the Special Court has power to issue warrant directing that the accused shall be arrested and produced before the Special Court and if such a warrant is issued, will it be open for the accused to apply for cancellation of the warrant by giving an undertaking to appear on all dates fixed?
- When a warrant of arrest has been issued on account of non-appearance or proceedings u/s. 82 and/or s.83 of the CrPC, whether the accused can be let off by taking bond u/s.88 of the CrPC?
- Whether ED and its officers have power u/s.19 to arrest a person shown as a accused in the complaint after cognizance is taken of the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the PMLA based on complaint u/s. 44(1)(b)?
- What if the ED wants custody of the accused who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation in the same offence?
Held
- Once cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, the Special Court is seized of the matter. After the cognizance is taken, the ED and other authorities named in Section 19 cannot exercise the power of arrest of the accused shown in the complaint. The reason is that the accused shown in the Complaint are under the jurisdiction of the Special Court dealing with the complaint. Therefore, after cognizance of the complaint under 44(1)(b) of the PMLA is taken by the Court, the ED and other authorities named in Section 19 are powerless to arrest an accuse named in the complaint. Hence, in such a case, an apprehension that the ED will arrest such an accused by exercising powers under Section 19 can never exist.
- Some of the Special Courts under the PMLA are following the practice of taking the accused into custody after they appear pursuant to the summons issued on the complaint. Therefore, the accused are compelled to apply for bail or for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest upon issuance of summons We cannot countenance a situation where, before the filing of the complaint, the accused is not arrested after the filing of the complaint, after he appears in compliance with the summons, he is taken into custody and forced to apply for bail. Hence, such a practice, if followed by some Special Courts, is completely illegal.
- Such a practice may offend the right to liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the ED wants custody of the accused who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation in the same offence, the ED will have to seek custody of the accused by applying to the Special Court. After hearing the accused, the Special Court must pass an order on the application by recording brief reasons. While hearing such an application, the Court may permit custody only if it is satisfied that custodial interrogation at that stage is required, even though the accused was never arrested under Section 19. However, when the ED wants to conduct a further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed under Section 44(1)(b), provided the requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled.
Now, we summarise our conclusions as under:
- Once a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA is filed, it will be governed by Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC as none of the said provisions are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the PMLA;
- If the accused was not arrested by the ED till filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b), as a normal rule, the Court should issue a summons to the accused and not a warrant. Even in a case where the accused is on bail, a summons must be issued;
- After a summons is issued under Section 204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA on a complaint, if the accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to the summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in custody. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to apply for bail. However, the Special Court can direct the accused to furnish bond in terms of Section 88 of the CrPC;
- In a case where the accused appears pursuant to a summons before the Special Court, on a sufficient cause being shown, the Special Court can grant exemption from personal appearance to the accused by exercising power under Section 205 of the CrPC;
- If the accused does not appear after a summons is served or does not appear on a subsequent date, the Special Court will be well within its powers to issue a warrant in terms of Section 70 of the CrPC. Initially, the Special Court should issue a bailable warrant. If it is not possible to effect service of the bailable warrant, then the recourse can be taken to issue a nonbailable warrant;
- A bond furnished according to Section 88 is only an undertaking by an accused who is not in custody to appear before the Court on the date fixed. Thus, an order accepting bonds under Section 88 from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail.
- In a case where the accused has furnished bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC, if he fails to appear on subsequent dates, the Special Court has the powers under Section 89 read with Sections 70 of the CrPC to issue a warrant directing that the accused shall be arrested and produced before the Special Court; If such a warrant is issued, it will always be open for the accused to apply for cancellation of the warrant by giving an undertaking to the Special Court to appear before the said Court on all the dates fixed by it. While cancelling the warrant, the Court can always take an undertaking from the accused to appear before the Court on every date unless appearance is specifically exempted. When the ED has not taken the custody of the accused during the investigation, usually, the Special Court will exercise the power of cancellation of the warrant without insisting on taking the accused in custody provided an undertaking is furnished by the accused to appear regularly before the Court. When the Special Court deals with an application for cancellation of a warrant, the Special Court is not dealing with an application for bai .Hence, Section 45(1) will have no application to such an application;
- When an accused appears pursuant to a summons, the Special Court is empowered to take bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC in a given case. However, it is not mandatory in every case to direct furnishing of bonds. However, if a warrant of arrest has been issued on account of non-appearance or proceedings under Section 82 and/or Section 83 of the CrPC have been issued against an accused, he cannot be let off by taking a bond under Section 88 of the CrPC, and the accused will have to apply for cancellation of the warrant.
- After cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA based on a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b), the ED and its officers are powerless to exercise power under Section 19 to arrest a person shown as an accused in the complaint; and
- If the ED wants custody of the accused who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation in the same offence, the ED will have to seek custody of the accused by applying to the Special Court. After hearing the accused, the Special Court must pass an order on the application by recording brief reason. While hearing such an application, the Court may permit custody only if it is satisfied that custodial interrogation at that stage is required, even though the accused was never arrested under Section 19. However, when the ED wants to conduct a further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed under Section 44(1)(b), provided the requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled.
- We are making it clear that we are dealing with a fact situation where the accused shown in the complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA was not arrested by the ED by the exercise of power under Section 19 of the PMLA till the complaint was filed.
- Hence, the appeals succeed, and we pass the following order:
- We set aside the impugned orders declining to grant anticipatory bail;
- We direct that warrants issued by the Special Courts against the appellants shall stand cancelled subject to the following conditions:
- The appellants shall appear before the concerned Special Court within one month from today and shall file an undertaking before the Special Court that they shall regularly and punctually appear before the Special Court on the dates fixed unless their appearance is specifically exempted by the exercise of powers under Section 205 of the CrPC; and ii. The appellants shall furnish bonds in accordance with Section 88 of the CrPC to the satisfaction of the Special Court within one month from today.
Relevant Para No.
- 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25