Brief Facts
- The Appellant was arrested by Enforcement Directorate for commission of offence under the PMLA.
- The Appellant filed the Petition challenging his arrest and sought declaration that his arrest was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and seeking direction to release the appellant forthwith.
- The Appellant relied on the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2023) SCC Online SC 1244 to submit that mere informing the accused (the appellant herein) orally about the grounds of arrest and making him read the same and obtaining his signature thereon, and not furnishing in writing the grounds of arrest to the accused has been held to be not in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 19(1) of the PMLA.
Issues
- Whether the action of the respondent ED in handing over the document containing the grounds of the arrest to arrestee and taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature thereon, as a token of he having read the same, and in not furnishing a copy thereof to the arrestee at the time of arrest would render the arrest illegal under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002?
- What does the expression “as soon as may be” mean as per Section 19 of PMLA?
- Whether the decision of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2023) SCC Online SC 1244 would apply retrospectively?
Held
- The Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and held that ED needn’t to give reasons in writing to the accused at time of arrest, can give within 24 hours. Also, it was held that judgment in Pankaj Bansal(supra) which held that the ED must furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing does not apply retrospectively and shall be applied prospectively.
- There remains no shadow of doubt that the law laid down by the Three-Judge bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (2022 SCC Online SC 929) that Section 19(1) of the PMLA has a reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PML Act and that the said provision is also compliant with the mandate of Article 21(1) of the Constitution of India, any observation made or any finding recorded by the Division Bench of lesser number of Judges contrary to the said ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) would be not in consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches in cases referred above The Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) having already examined in detail the constitutional validity of Section 19 of PMLA on the touchstone of Article 22(1) and upheld the same, it holds the field as on the date.
Reasons of arrest must be communicated within 24 hours of arrest.
- Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest.
- The expression “as soon as may be” contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time.
- Since the appellant was indisputably informed about the grounds of arrest and he having also put his signature and the endorsement on the said document of having been informed, we hold that there was due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 19 of PMLA and his arrest could neither be said to be violative of the said provision nor of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
Relevant Para No.
4, 17, 21, 22, 24