Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1143 - DELHI HIGH COURTLegal 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.
|