TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w. Section 4 of the PML Act. If for such a serious offence in view of this prima facie material, Respondent No.2 had reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of moneylaundering and hence Respondent No.2 arrests the Petitioner and the Special Court remands him to Custody, then neither the arrest nor the detention of the Petitioner can be called as illegal to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the very object of the PML Act would be frustrated, if the Petitioner projects some loophole or infirmity in the implementation of the provisions of the PML Act, in order to get his release from detention, that too by invoking such extra-ordinary remedy, circumventing the very specific provisions of bail, as laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act. After all, the provisions of PML Act or any Statute are to be interpreted in order to advance the substantial cause of justice and not to curtail the same in any way or to create an hindrance in achieving the said cause. If the provisions of PML Act are to be interpreted, therefore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution of India. 5. This relief is claimed by the Petitioner in the conspectus of the following facts :- The Petitioner is a citizen of India and the then PWD Minister in the State of Maharashtra. In a Public Interest Litigation No.23 of 2014 filed by the Aam Aadmi Party and its office bearers, who is intervener in this petition, the grant of contract for construction of New Maharashtra Sadan at Delhi was questioned, inter alia, alleging irregularities, lack of transparency and apprehending transfer of funds indirectly to the Petitioner. In the said Public Interest Litigation, on 18th December 2014, the Division Bench of this Court directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team, (for short, SIT ), comprising of Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, and Director, Enforcement Directorate, to look into the allegations made against the Petitioner and his relatives. Accordingly, the SIT was constituted and on the receipt of the reports of the SIT from time to time, this Court, vide its order dated 29th April 2015, was pleased to clarify that the Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau, and the Director, Enforcement Directorate, need not wait for any orders of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, however, not arraigned as accused in the said FIR. 9. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, in respect of these Enforcement Case Information Reports, (for short, ECIR ), he was summoned, for the first time, on 14th March 2016 and, accordingly, he appeared before Respondent No.2 in his office on the same day, at about 10:30 hours, to co-operate him in the investigation. However, the Petitioner had been restrained from moving out of the office, even for taking lunch, and was, thus, illegally taken in custody by restraining his movements. It is his further contention that to show that his arrest was in consonance with Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, in the impugned arrest order dated 14th March 2016, it was stated that the arrest of the Petitioner was made at 22:05 hours. However, no authorization issued by the Central Government in the name of Respondent No.2 for effecting the arrest of the Petitioner was shown, nor the written communication of the grounds of arrest was made available to him. 10. On 15th March 2016, Petitioner was produced before the Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering at Mumbai at about 16:30 hours i.e. beyond the period of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project of Maharashtra Sadan was given to M/s.K.S. Chamankar on a platter in defiance of rules and regulations prevalent in the matter. The project was amounting to ₹ 4,700 Crores (at the price, then, prevailing in the year 2006). It was awarded to a contractor having hardly any experience of undertaking such a huge project, or having any resources to execute the same. The proceeds derived out of this criminality were to be shared between the conspirators including M/s.K.S. Chamankar Enterprises, their partners and their associates, M/s. Prime Builders and Developers, their partners and associates, namely, the Petitioner. It was also alleged that by resorting to misrepresentation of facts and forgery and by accepting the bribes and other pecuniary benefits, the Petitioner has misused his official position as the PWD Minister. As a result, the State Government of Maharashtra, has suffered loss to the tune of ₹ 840.16 Crores. Whereas, M/s.K.S. Chamankar Enterprises, its partners, its partners, the Chamankar Family, M/s.Prime Builders and Developers, its partners, Shailesh Mehta and Dhanpat Seth have reaped an undue gain of ₹ 840.16 Crores. 13. It was also allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corpus, amongst other Writs, while challenging the vires of Sections 45 and 49 of PML Act, or, for reading them down and seeking Writ of quo- Warranto qua the Respondent No.2. In the said Writ Petition, on 27th September 2016, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought time to file reply and the matter was adjourned to 27th September 2016. Meanwhile, Petitioner came to know about the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gorav Kathuria Vs. Union of India and Ors., [Dated 11th May 2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No.595 of 2016], wherein Section 45 of PML Act has been read down by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Criminal Appeal No.737 of 2016 preferred against the said order came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12th August 2016. Petitioner, in such circumstances, sought to withdraw the earlier Writ Petition, seeking liberty to file the instant Petition, restricting his relief only to the extent of Writ of Habeas Corpus. 18. This relief is sought by the Petitioner, firstly, on the ground that the requisite procedure for arrest of the Petitioner is not followed in the case. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 155(1) of the Code needs to be followed, but the remaining provisions of the Code also come into play. Here in the case, the provisions, which are required to be followed by the concerned authorized officer while effecting the arrest, as laid down in Chapter XII of the Code from Sections 154 to 173, are not at all complied with. It is submitted that these are the mandatory procedural safeguards, which were required to be followed by the Investigating Agency; whether the Investigating Agency is the Enforcement Directorate or the Police Officer; especially, when it pertains to the personal liberty of the Petitioner, which is guaranteed under the various provisions of the Constitution. It is urged that Section 65 of PML Act clearly mandates application of provisions of the Code, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of PML Act relating to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings. 21. In this respect, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Union of India, ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is urged that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), conducting an investigation into an offence after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is the 'procedure established by law' and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that as no such FIR was lodged in the instant case before arrest of the Petitioner, that Constitutional safeguard for the protection of the citizen is violated in the instant case, thereby making the Petitioner's arrest illegal. 23. Next, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that no such Case Diary, as was required to be maintained under Section 172 of the Code, noting down the day-to-day progress in the investigation, was maintained or produced before the Special Court at the time of seeking remand of the Petitioner. By placing reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rakesh Manekchand Kothari Vs. Union of India Ors., in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.4247 of 2015 dated 3rd August, 2015, it is submitted that in the said case also, prima facie, it was held that, the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record to show that Respondent No.2 was authorized by the Central Government to exercise the power of arrest. It is urged that as per the Notification No. GSR 441(E) dated 1st July 2005, which has not been rescinded till the date, the power of arrest has been conferred by the Central Government exclusively upon the Director of Enforcement holding office under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. No such power under Section 19 of PML Act is conferred on any other Director. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 is not the Director but an Assistant Director and in the absence of any notification, produced on record to show that he has been authorized by the Central Government to exercise the power of arrest, the very arrest of the Petitioner, effected by Respondent No.2, is ex-facie illegal, void and unauthorized and hence liable to be set aside. 26. According to learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, it is a fit case where the Writ of Habeas Corpus needs to be issued for release of the Petitioner forthwith from such illegal and unauthorized arrest. 27. The Petitioner has, in this context, in view of these alleged manifest illegalities while effecting his arrest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gests that the offences are cognizable and non-bailable. It is submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Neeraj Kaul that, in several of its Judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the head-notes are to be read as part of the Section and they cannot be segregated or separated from the provisions. By pointing out to the contents of Section 45(1) of the PML Act, it is submitted that the said section also clarifies that this provision overrides the provisions of the Code and further de-bars Police Officers from investigating into the offences under PML Act. 30. It is urged that the amendment carried out to Section 45 of PML Act in the year 2005, was only for the purpose of clearing the conflict as to exercise of the power of arrest for the offences under the PML Act, between the Police Officers and Enforcement Directorate Authorities. It has no effect of making the offences under PML Act as non-cognizable. It is submitted that, even having regard to the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act, which may extend upto seven years of imprisonment, in view of the provisions of the Code also, the said off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ML Act, giving overriding effect to these provisions, all the contentions raised by the Petitioner to challenge his custody as illegal and unauthorized fell on the ground. 34. As to the ground raised by the Petitioner that Respondent No.2, who was the then Assistant Director of Enforcement, Directorate Department, was not authorized to effect the arrest, it is submitted that, as Respondent No.2 was one of the authorities appointed for the purpose of PML Act, it is clear that in view of Sections 48 and 49 r/w. Section 19 of PML Act that he was the officer appointed to exercise the power of arrest and, therefore, he was competent and authorized to arrest the Petitioner. Therefore, the challenge to Petitioner s arrest on this ground also fails. 35. Lastly, it is submitted that the arrest of the Petitioner is effected, after following all the procedural safeguards and in accordance with the provisions of PML Act. There is no violation of any of the procedural safeguard. His arrest and custody is also validated by the order of the competent Special Court and in such situation, the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot lie for his release. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Statute Book. 39. However, before adverting to the provisions of PML Act, it would be necessary to deal, firstly, with the maintainability of this Petition, as challenged by learned Additional Solicitor General for the Respondents. Maintainability of Petition for Habeas Corpus 40. In this case, the Petitioner is seeking the relief of habeas corpus on the ground that his arrest by Respondent No.2 and his subsequent detention in the custody, as per the remand granted by the Special Court, is illegal and void ab initio. Hence he is entitled for his release; whereas, according to Respondents, the Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody for committing an offence under Section 4 r/w. Section 3 of PML Act and his custody has been duly authorized and granted by the competent Special Court, established under the PML Act. Therefore, he is under custody in consequence of judicial orders of remands passed by the Special Court. As such, his Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be maintainable for the release; especially when he can avail an alternate remedy of Revision Application or a Writ Petition under Section 227 of the Constitution. 41. To substantiate this submission, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons laid down were clearly satisfied and hence there was no question of granting relief. While concluding, in last paragraph, it was categorically held that, a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be granted when a person is committed to jail custody by the competent Court by an order, which, prima facie, does not appear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. (emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the Petitioner was held not entitled to a Writ of Habeas Corpus to free him from detention. 43. Learned Additional Solicitor General has in this respect also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Narayan Singh vs. The State of Delhi ors., AIR 1953 SCC 277, to submit that in habeas corpus proceeding, the Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings. It is urged that in this judgment, in paragraph (4), it was categorically held that in a question of habeas corpus, when the lawfulness or otherwise of the custody of the persons concerned is in question, the Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific mandatory safeguard laid down in clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution, in para No.14, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that; 14. Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters. This the State has failed to do. The remand orders are patently routine and appear to have been made mechanically. All that Mr. Chagla has said is that if the arrested persons wanted to challenge their legality the High Court should have been moved under appropriate provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. But it must be remembered that Madhu Limaye and others have, by moving this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, complained of detention or confinement in jail without compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions. If their detention in custody could not continue after their arrest because of the violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution they were entitled to be released forthwith. The orders of remand are not such as would cure the constitutional infir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the above-said authority of Kanu Sanyal (supra), if the person is committed to Jail custody by a competent Court by an order, which, prima facie, does not appear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, such Writ of Habeas Corpus can neither be asked for, nor can be granted. 49. This legal position has been further clarified and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision of Manubhai R.P. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 314 . In this case, the complaint was lodged against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 409 and 114 of IPC. He filed an application under Section 482 of the Code, challenging the registration of FIR and further investigation. On 16th July 2012, the accused was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC) at 4:00 p.m. on 17th July 2012. The JMFC granted remand to custody of the appellant-accused upto 2:00 p.m. on 19th July 2012. On the same day, i.e. 17th July 2012, the High Court passed an interim order staying further proceedings in respect of the investigation. The interim order passed by the High Court was brought to the notice of an investigating ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Apex Court considered its Judgment in Madhu Limaye (supra). In paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered, in detail, the above referred Judgment in the case of Kanu Sanyal (supra) and, ultimately, in paragraph No.21, the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted with approval the principle laid down in the case of Kanu Sanyal (supra) that, any infirmity in the detention of the Petitioner at the initial stage cannot invalidate the subsequent detention and the same has to be judged on its own merits. (emphasis supplied) 53. In paragraph No.22, the Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410, wherein it was opined, in paragraph No.48, that; 48. ... It is settled by Constitution Bench decisions that a petition seeking the Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground of absence of a valid order of remand or detention of the accused, has to be dismissed, if on the date of return of the rule, the custody or detention is on the basis of a valid order. (emphasis supplied) 54. Ultimately, while concluding, in paragraph No.31, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016, the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court at Mumbai, established under the PML Act, and the Special Court had, vide its detailed order running into four pages, which is produced in the paper-book by the Petitioner at page Nos.172 to 175 (Exhibit Q ), remanded the Petitioner to the custody of Enforcement Director till 17th March 2016. 58. May it be noted that the competency of the Special Court to remand the Petitioner, which is established under the provisions of PML Act, is not at all challenged. Thereafter also, from time to time, the said Special Court has extended the remand of the Petitioner to the judicial custody on 17th and 31st March 2016 by passing detail orders, giving all the reasons. 59. The perusal of the initial order of 15th March 2016, when the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court for the first time, on his arrest on 14th March 2016, clearly reveals that the Petitioner was produced by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and the grounds for his arrest and production were brought to the notice of the Special Court. It its order, the Special Court has considered in detail the report submitted by Respondent No.2 for seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation, was stated, saying that the proceeds of the crime to the tune of ₹ 750 Crores were yet to be identified and for that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner was necessary to unearth the process of generation of illicit funds and for the purpose of the corroboration and confrontation of the Petitioner with the others involved in the case, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner was necessary. It was further stated in the remand order that the Petitioner, having played a very crucial role in generation and subsequent monitoring of huge amounts of money and being prima facie guilty of the offence of money-laundering, as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PML Act, and further having regard that he being an influential person and may influence the other witnesses or tamper the evidence, if allowed to remain at large, his detention was necessary. 61. The Special Court has, thus, remanded the Petitioner to the custody of Enforcement Directorate till 17th March 2016. The order passed by the Special Court, in this way, gives detailed reasons as to how there was sufficient material creating a reasonable belief about the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors, the orders of remand having thus cured the alleged Constitutional infirmities and such orders, prima facie, being not passed without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, then, as per the law laid down in the above cited authorities, the Writ for Habeas Corpus itself is not maintainable. 64. It is also pertinent to note that whatever grievances raised by the Petitioner in this Petition to challenge his arrest as illegal on the count of his arrest being not effected by the officer authorized under the PML Act; or he being not produced within twenty-four hours before the Court; or being not supplied with the grounds of arrest; or the offence being non-cognizable he could not have been arrested without permission of the Court, none of these contentions, as can be seen from the remand order of the Special Court, appear to have been raised before the Special Court, either at the time of first remand on 15th March 2016 or thereafter from time to time when he was remanded. He had not even raised the ground that he was called at the office of the Enforcement Directorate at 10:30 hours and was detained illegally. He had also not contended that his arrest was wrongly shown at 22:05 hours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wanted to invoke all kinds of provisions, like Sections 151, 107 and 117 of the Code, apart from Section 188 of IPC, and since no arrest could be effected for an offence under Section 188 of IPC by the Police Officers without proper orders, it was held that these officers may have been naturally reluctant to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, by giving necessary information and that was the reason why the reasons of arrest were not told to Madhu Limaye and others . In that backdrop, it was held that this infirmity being not cured in view of the routine remand orders passed by the Magistrate mechanically, without applying his mind to all the relevant matters, the Petition for Habeas Corpus would lie. 67. As against it, in the present case, the Remand Report and the order of remand passed by the Special Court clearly state which offence is made out against the Petitioner and on the basis of which material. As stated above, all the Remand Reports are in detail, so also the remand orders, in which the Special Court has applied its mind to all the relevant matters. Therefore, in no way, it can be said that the impugned order of remand, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Even though there are several other issues raised in the Writ Petition, in view of the facts narrated above, there is no need for us to go into those issues. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for his release in Criminal Case No. 129/13 pending before the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai. (emphasis supplied) 71. Accordingly, it was held that the Petitioner cannot be entitled to the relief of the habeas corpus, which he was seeking, making it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies as available to him, in accordance with law. 72. In his supplementary judgment, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India had also in paragraph (21) held that two things are evident from the record as follows; 21. Firstly, the accused is involved in a criminal case for which he has been arrested and produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody; Secondly, the petitioner does not appear to have made any application for grant of bail, even when the remaining accused persons alleged to be absconding and remain to be served. The net re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for the grant of bail to the Court concerned who shall consider the same no sooner the same is filed and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. (emphasis supplied) 75. Thus, it is clear that, even after finding that the Magistrate has acted rather mechanically in remanding the petitioner/accused to the judicial custody, and has taken the process in a cavalier fashion, that betrayed his insensitivity towards denial of personal liberty of a citizen, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not thought it fit to issue the writ of habeas corpus. It is also significant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed its regrets towards the kind of apathy shown by the Magistrate but even then the Hon'ble Apex Court did not issue the writ of habeas corpus. It is also pertinent to note that though the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner/accused is not so serious, so as to probabilise the version of the Respondent that accused has indeed absconded, despite that, the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to grant the relief of writ of habeas corpus and observed that the Petitioner was free to make an applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef for Bail 78. Once it is held to be so, then, as regards the interim relief claimed by the Petitioner for his release on bail on the medical ground, also cannot be granted. We say so, not only because the Petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable, but, we say so, because already the Petitioner has, on this very medical ground, applied for his release on regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code. It is a matter of record that his application for bail filed before the Special Court on 3rd May 2016 on the medical ground came to be rejected by the Special Court vide its detail order on 13th May 2016, after considering all the contentions raised therein and being satisfied that the Petitioner is given proper medical treatment, which may be necessary. The copy of the said order is produced at Exhibit AA , page Nos.352 to 362, of the paper-book. In the said application, it was brought to the notice of the Special Court by the Respondents that the Petitioner was already taken to the J.J. Hospital for his medical ailment and there necessary tests were advised, for which he was taken to the private Bombay Hospital. The detailed order of the Special Court reveals that, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the Officer, duly authorized by the Central Government and, thirdly, the procedural safeguards for the arrest, as laid down under the PML Act and also under the Code, being not followed in the case. Provisions of PML Act 83. Now, in order to consider and appreciate various contentions raised on these three grounds, it would be necessary to first consider, in detail, the provisions of PML Act, along with its object and reasons and the purpose for which the said Act was brought on the Statute Book. 84. It needs to be stated that the PML Act was enacted on 17th January 2003 to prevent the offences of money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' of the Act, it was specifically stated that; It is being realized, world over, that moneylaundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty . 85. The 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' further elaborates some of the initiatives taken by the international community t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency can attach any property, and to empower the Enforcement Directorate to search the premises immediately after the offence is registered etc. 88. As recently as in the year 2013, taking note of the fact that the problem of money-laundering has become a global menace and it has no longer restricted to the geopolitical boundaries of any country and also considering the fact that India has become member of the Financial Action Task Force, an Asia Pacific Group on Money- Laundering, thereby evidencing its commitment to the effective implementation and enforcement of internationally accepted standards against money-laundering and the financing of terrorism, the necessity was felt. To bring the Legislation of India relating to Anti-Money-Laundering at par with the international standards and to obviate some of the deficiencies in the Act that had been experienced by the implementing agency, the Act was amended with effect from 15th February 2013. 89. The Amendment Act, 2013, was intended also to enlarge the definition of Offence of Money-Laundering to include therein the activities, like, concealment, acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of crime as criminal activities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words which may extend to seven years , the words, which may extend to ten years had been substituted. 95. Chapter III of the PML Act provides for Attachment, Adjudication and Confiscation of the Property, involved in Money- Laundering , to which we are not presently concerned. Similarly, Chapter IV of the PML Act, which deals with the Obligations of Banking Companies, Financial Institutions and Intermediaries , is also not relevant for the purpose of this Petition. 96. Chapter V of the PML Act deals with the summons, searches and seizures etc. In this Chapter, Section 19 is of relevance, as it deals with power to arrest . It reads as follows :- Section 19 - Power to arrest (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (that reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority, as the case may be, shall- (a) presume, that the signature and every other part of such record which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the Court may reasonable assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and in the case of a record executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence. Section 24 - Burden of Proof - In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act - (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and (b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. 98. Chapter VI contains provisions relating to Appellate Tribunal and for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the purposes of this Act, namely:- (a) Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, (b) Deputy Director, (c) Assistant Director, and (d) Such other class of officers as may be appointed for the purposes of this Act. Section 49 - Appointment and powers of authorities and other officers - (1) The Central Government may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be authorities for the purposes of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may authorize the Director or an Additional Director or a joint Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director appointed under that sub-section to appoint other authorities below the rank of an Assistant Director. (3) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Central Government may impose, an authority may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on it under this Act. 100. Then comes Chapter IX of the PML Act, which deals with Reciprocal Arrangement for Assistance in Certain Matters and Procedure for Attachment and Confiscation of Property , which is strictly speaking not relevant for the purpose of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Code or any other Act. Thus, the provisions of the Code can be looked into only and only when the provisions of this Act are silent as to the particular aspects, such as 'arrest' etc. and provided that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Offences under PML Act whether non-cognizable ? 106. In the light of these provisions of PML Act, the very first contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner needs to be considered, which pertains to the question whether the offences under the PML Act are cognizable or non-cognizable. Learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has in this respect relied upon the head-note of Section 45 of the PML Act, which states that the offences are cognizable and non-bailable ; whereas, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the amendment carried out to Section 45 of PML Act, in the year 2005 omitting clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 45, which provided that, every offence punishable under the PML Act shall be cognizable . According to learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, in view of this amendment, omitting clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Solicitor General has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Sanjay Transport Agency and anr., (2009) 7 SCC 345, wherein, while dealing with the interpretation of the provisions of Section 2(1)(b) and Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph (6) as follows; It is well settled rule of interpretation that the section heading or marginal note can be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of any provision and to discern the legislative intent. The section heading constitutes an important part of the Act itself, and may be read not only as explaining the provisions of the section, but it also affords a better key to the constructions of the provisions of the section which follows than might be afforded by a mere preamble. (emphasis supplied) 109. Therefore, as held in both these decisions, head-note is important to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of the provision and to discern the legislative intent. Further as held therein, the Section-heading constitutes on important part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed) 112. Thus, bare perusal of the statement made by the then Finance Minister, while introducing this amendment in Section 45(1) of the Act, makes it clear that, as it was apprehended that if the offence is cognizable, then any Police Officer in India can arrest an offender without warrant; whereas, Section 19 of the PML Act authorizes only certain authorities, like Director or a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director or any other officer authorized, to arrest an offender, there was a conflict between the two provisions and in view thereof, it was felt that it was necessary to remove such conflict. This necessity was also felt on the ground, that under Section 45(1) (b) of the PML Act, the Special Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 4 thereof, only upon a complaint made in writing by the Director or any other officer authorized by the Central Government. Hence, it was apprehended as to what would happen to an arrest made by the Police Officer in the case of a cognizable offence?; which is the Court that will try such offence? Hence, in view of this clear inconsistency, it was thought fit to enable, only a Director or an officer authoriz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. 117. In view of this definition of cognizable offence , it is clear that if the offence falls under the First Schedule of the Code or under any other law for the time being in force, the Police Officer may arrest without warrant. The 'First Schedule' of the Code specifically provides classification of the offences, which are cognizable or non-cognizable ; bailable or non-bailable and triable by which Court according to the punishment, which is provided for the said offences. Under Part II of the First Schedule, Classification of Offences against Other Laws provides that, offences punishable with imprisonment for more than three years or upwards would be cognizable and nonbailable . 118. In the instant case, the offence under Section 4 r/w. Section 3 of the PML Act, as reproduced above, is punishable with imprisonment for more than three years and which may extend upto seven years or even upto ten years, as the case may be. Therefore, in view of Part II of the First Schedule of the Code, the said offence becomes cognizable. Therefore, merely because sub-clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 45 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 120. Therefore, accepting that sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PML Act is deleted and as a result, now the provisions of PML Act are silent as to whether the offence is cognizable or noncognizable, the recourse has to be taken to the provisions of Section 65 of the PML Act and Section 4(2) and 5 of the Code to hold that, in view of Part II of 'First Schedule' of the Code, the offence under this Act being punishable with imprisonment for more than three years and extending upto seven years, the offence has become cognizable. 121. As a matter of fact, in our considered opinion, there is also no need to enter into this aspect whether the offences under this Act are cognizable or non-cognizable, because Section 19 of the PML Act is very much clear. The said provision clearly confers power on the authorized officer to arrest any person, if the authority has reason to believe, on the basis of the material in its possession, that a person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the said Act. Thus, it is clear that, the moment, the authority under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. 123. It is obviate that if the intention of the Legislature was to restrict such power of arrest of even the authorized officer in respect of the offence punishable under this Act, there was no difficulty for the Legislature to do so when the Amendment Act of 2005 was introduced; even before the Act of 2002 was notified. The very fact that the Legislature has not done so and has also not intended to do so, as can be seen from the statement made by the then Minister of Finance in the Parliament, makes it necessary to infer that Legislature did not intend to curb the power of arrest, which was given to the authority under Section 19 of the PML Act; whether such offence was cognizable or non-cognizable. In such situation, in our considered opinion, this argument relating to whether the offence under the PML Act is cognizable or non-cognizable becomes merely of an academic interest. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 124. In our considered view, for the same reason the question, 'whether the arresting authority was required to follow the procedure laid down in Section 155(1) of the Code&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tle of Chapter XII of the Code states that Police and Their Powers to Investigate , thereby meaning that this Chapter concerns to the restrictions on the powers of Police in respect of the information received by them about commission of cognizable or non-cognizable offence and, depending thereon, arrest of the concerned accused. The provisions of this Chapter of the Code can be applied to the offences punishable under the provisions of PML Act, only if the provisions in PML Act are silent as regards the investigation and arrest of person, who has been found to be guilty of committing the offences punishable under the PML Act. 128. This is for the reason that of the PML Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of PML Act. Section 71 of the PML Act clearly lays down that, the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force . Section 65 of PML Act further makes the position clear by stating that, the provisions of the Code shall apply, only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of PML Act, even as regards arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this Act. If those provisions of Chapter XII of the Code are to be read even in respect of these offences, then, it follows that Section 19 of PML Act would be rendered nugatory and that cannot be the intention of the Legislature. The Court cannot make any special provision in the Act as nugatory or infructuous by giving the interpretation which is not warranted by the Legislature. As a matter of fact, the endeavour of the Court should always be to ensure that the provisions enacted by the Legislature are not rendered nugatory in any way. 132. It is pertinent to note that Section 19 of PML Act, which does not contemplate the compliance with the procedure required to be followed by the Police Officer under Chapter XII of the Code, is not challenged in this Petition, as being ultra vires. In the absence of such challenge raised and in view of the clear provision laid down in Section 19 of PML Act, it cannot be accepted that the officer authorized under the PML Act should have followed the procedure laid down in Chapter XII of the Code, which is meant for Police Officers, to be followed in respect of the informations received by them. 133. Section 19(1) of the PML Act, at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... henever the arrest is to be effected and such procedure being followed in the instant case, it can hardly be accepted that the arrest or detention of the Petitioner is, in any way, illegal or without jurisdiction, so as to invoke the extra-ordinary writ remedy and that too of a habeas corpus; especially when the writ of habeas corpus is to lie whenever there is reason to believe that the person is in illegal detention; whereas, in the instant case, the Petitioner is arrested and detained for commission of specific offences. His detention is also validated by the order passed by the Special Court and as such, his detention cannot be called as illegal, far remain null and void, so as, for the Constitutional Court to exercise its extra-ordinary powers under writ jurisdiction; especially, when the Petitioner has already approached the competent Special Court and this Court also, for his release on bail and the said relief having been rejected with valid reasons by both the Courts. 137. As regards the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), it is also pertinent to note th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1898), offences under Section 9 shall be deemed to be non-cognizable within the meaning of that Code. 140. In view thereof, it was held that, this non-obstanti clause , with which the Section begins, in very categorical terms, makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, offences under Section 9 of Central Excise Act, 1944 would be deemed to be non-cognizable within the meaning of the Code. As against it, in the case of PML Act there is no such section containing positive assertion that the offences under the Act are noncognizable, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code. There is also no judicial pronouncement to that effect from the Hon'ble Apex Court. As pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that issue is pending for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 141. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in this judgment of Omprakash (supra), then also dealt with Sections 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the said Central Excise Act, 1944, which read follows :- 13. Power to Arrest - (1) Any Central Excise Officer not below the rank of Inspector of Central Excise may, with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall make a full report of all the particulars of the case to his official superior. 142. In the light of all these relevant provisions of Section 9A making the offences non-cognizable, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code and Section 18 making it mandatory, as use of the word shall denote, that all the arrests made under those Act's shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code and Section 19 of the said Act providing that the person arrested shall be forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of nearest Police Station, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that; as all the searches and arrests made under the said Act has to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code, the provision of Section 155 of the Code, which deals with information relating to non-cognizable offences also becomes applicable and hence it was held that in respect of the information relating to non-cognizable offences, in view of Section 155(1) of the Code, investigation cannot be commenced or a person cannot be arrested without a warrant for such arrest. In the light thereof, the provisions of Section 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r other Acts also, like, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and in this Petition, the authorities under PML Act also. According to him, in this case, as these provisions of the Code were not followed in effecting the arrest of the Petitioner, arrest of the Petitioner is illegal. 145. However, in our considered opinion, this line of argument is misconceived as in the PML Act, there is no such provision, like Section 18 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, laying down that arrest under PML Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The conspicuous absence of such provision like Section 18 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in PML Act, is a very relevant aspect for deciding the issue, 'whether the authorities under the PML Act, like the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944, are also bound by the provisions of the Code relating to arrest and investigation?' 146. In our considered opinion, therefore, once it is held that such provision like Section 18 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not appearing and is conspicuous by its absence in PML Act, then, one has to go by the provisions of the PML Act only, as Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person arrested under the FEMA or Customs Act, the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code are having mandatory application. Thus, this decision does not pertain to the 'power of arrest', but to the provisions of Section 167 of the Code, which pertain to the custodial detention. It is also pertinent to note that provisions of the Code were resorted to in this judgment in the aid of implementation of the provisions of the Customs Act and not to create hindrance in implementation of the said Act. It would be necessary in this respect to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.23 of the said Judgment. It was observed that; 23. Keeping in view the cardinal principle of law that every law is designed to further the ends of justice but not to frustrate on the mere technicalities, we shall deal with all those challenges in the background of the principles of statutory interpretations and of the purpose and the spirit of the concerned Acts as gathered from their intendment. (emphasis supplied) 149. Therefore, in our considered opinion, as this Judgment also lays down that the provisions of law are to be interpreted to further the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. It needs no emphasis that no one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable up to unfathomable cosmos. Any recognition of such power will be tantamount to recognition of 'Divine Power' which no authority on earth can enjoy. 151. There can hardly be any dispute or two opinions about the legal proposition laid down in this authority that that the police should exercise the investigatory powers by following statutory provisions so as to not cause any serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen. However, in the instant case, the perusal of the remand orders does not reflect that there was breach of any statutory provisions, so as to cause any serious prejudice to the liberty of the Petitioner. 152. In this respect, reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Gorav Kathuria vs. Union of India and ors. In Criminal W.P.No.595 of 2016 is also misplaced. The reason for the same is that the said decision pertains to the petition which has chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 45 of PML Act but he is seeking the relief of habeas corpus. Therefore, this decision in Gorav Kathuria (supra), which deals with Section 45 of the PML Act pertaining to regular bail, is of absolutely no help to the Petitioner. Even accepting that the SLP preferred against the said judgment by the Petitioner therein, challenging it on the count that he was refused locus-standi to file such private complaint, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.737 of 2016 vide its order dated 12th August, 2016, despite the Certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in our considered opinion, as this judgment and the issues raised therein were totally different and the provisions of PML Act and other Acts were considered in the light of the issues raised therein, this judgment cannot be of much help for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in this petition, in which, the Petitioner is claiming his release under the writ of habeas corpus and not under regular bail under Section 45 of PML Act. 155. Even as regards the decision of Gautam Kundu vs. Manoj Kumar, Criminal Appeal No.1706 of 2015, which is also considered in the case of Gora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments advanced by Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the Petitioner . In view thereof, regard was given to the peculiar facts of that case, which showed that fraud has been committed by some of the accused, however, the complaint did not show any material evidence, direct or circumstantial against the Petitioner. It was found that so far as the Petitioner therein was concerned, there was no recovery or discovery from or at the instance of the Petitioner. Barring statements, there was no prima facie material evidence against the Petitioner of any money laundering, despite the fact that he was in custody for the last about 11 months . It was also noticed that the uncle of the Petitioner, who was alleged to have much higher role and stated to be the main accused was on bail. Not only that, out of 89 accused persons and entities, all were on bail, except eight or nine including the Petitioner . Hence, it was held that, if about 80 out of 89 accused are ordered to join investigation under protection of Court order, the Petitioner who had already undergone about 11 months is entitled to interim relief as prayed . Needless to state that the facts of the present case are tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Petitioner, therein, by the Officers of Enforcement Directorate under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PML Act, on the ground that the offences are non-cognizable in nature and in absence of any prior sanction/order of Magistrate, the investigation being conducted by the said authorities, is not justified. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was pleased to reject these contentions and dismissed the petition by its final order. Hence this judgment being a final authoritative pronouncement can be of more help. In this Judgment of Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after considering all the relevant case laws, which are cited by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in this case also, Division Bench found no substance or reason to hold that offences under PML Act are non-cognizable and the Authorities under the PML Act have to follow the procedure laid down in the Code in respect of the arrest under Section 19 of the Act. 161. In this judgment, the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash and another vs. Union of India (supra), Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan (supra), Lalita Kumari vs. Goverment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject to such conditions and limitations, as the Central Government may impose, an authority may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred and imposed on it under this Act . 164. It is submitted that the only notification, which is issued by the Central Government so far, is dated 1st July 2005 and it confers exclusive powers on the Director of Enforcement under FEMA, holding office immediately before the said date. The relevant notification is produced by the Petitioner at Exhibit-F, page No.129 of the paper-book. It can be reproduced as follows; The Gazette of India Notification New Delhi, the 1st July, 2005 G.S.R.411(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government hereby appoints, with effect from the 1st day of July, 2005, the Director of Enforcement holding office immediately before the said date under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), as the Director to exercise the exclusive powers conferred under section 5, section 8, section 16, section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21, subsection (1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e power conferred on the director of FEMA is not to the exclusion of other authorities, which are specified in Section 19 of the PML Act itself. The Director may be given exclusive powers, but not to the exclusion of other authorities . 167. In this judgment the provisions of Section 48 of the PML Act, which defines Authorities under the Act and Section 49 of the PML Act, which deal with Appointment and Powers of Authorities under the Act are elaborately dealt with. The provisions of Section 50 of the PML Act, which deals with the Powers of Authorities Regarding Summons, Production of Documents and to Give Evidence etc. and Section 51 relating to Jurisdiction of Authorities , r/w. Section 52, about the Powers of the Central Government to Issue Directions , are also considered and thereafter it was held that the Ministry of Finance has appointed the Enforcement Director, as appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 36 of FEMA, as 'Assistant Director' for the purpose of PML Act and such order is issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 49 of PML Act. 168. In our considered view also having regard to the above notification which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y general or special order to exercise the power to arrest any person under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act. 171. It is submitted that the use of the 'comma' after the words Director , Deputy Director , Assistant Director or any other officer and subsequent words after the 'comma', as authorized in this behalf by the Central Government , make it clear that such a Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer are also required to be authorized in this behalf by the Central Government. According to learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, no such authorization is issued in the instant case. It is submitted that this aspect being not properly considered in above said judgment, it needs to be considered in this case. 172. However, perusal of the decision of the learned Judge of this Court, [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. in Criminal Bail Application No.71 of 2013 decided on 04.02.2013], clearly reveals that this aspect was definitely considered in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the said Judgment, which read as under :- 13. I have considered these arguments. First the rules which have been relied on have been framed in exercise of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 19 of PML Act, to require that, the Central Government has to issue notification under those Rules for authorizing the officer to effect the arrest. The law is well settled that the definition given in the Rules has to be read in conformity with the provisions of Section 19 of PML Act and hence appropriate interpretation would be, as far as Directors, Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors are concerned, no such authorization of the Central Government is required; whereas, in respect of other officers, such authorization may be necessary. 174. As to non-consideration of sub-section 3 of Section 49 of PML Act in the above two authorities, even bare perusal of sub-section 3 of Section 49 of PML Act makes it clear that the authority may exercise the powers and discharge duties conferred or imposed on it under this Act, subject to such conditions and limitations, as the Central Government may impose. Therefore, only if some conditions and limitations are imposed by Central Government, the power of arrest, which is already vested in these authorities can be restricted. In the instant case, not a single notification issued u/s.49 (3) of the Act is produced to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ext issue relating to the compliance of proper procedure prescribed under the Act for effecting arrest. Though learned Senior Counsel counsel for the Petitioner has placed much reliance on Article 22 of the Constitution, which lays down certain safeguards for effecting arrest, the only relevant clauses of Article 22 of the Constitution for the purpose of deciding this Petition are clauses (1) and (2). So far as clause No.(3) is concerned, it makes it clear that clause Nos.(1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution do not apply to any person, who, for the time being, is an enemy alien or to any person, who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. Subsequent clauses, namely, (4), (5), (6) and (7) deal with the arrest of the person under preventive detention. As regards clause Nos.(1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution, they lay down the following safeguards :- (1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. (2) Every person who is arrested and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the Petitioner on Sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. It is submitted that the grounds of arrest are not only to be recorded but they are also required to be informed to the person arrested, immediately. It is urged that, the use of the word shall in Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 makes it clear that such grounds are to be provided to the arrested person at the time of arrest or immediately after the arrest. Reliance is also placed on the Rules framed under the Money- Laundering Act, 2002, particularly, the Prevention of Money- Laundering (the Forms and the Manner of Forwarding a Copy of Order of Arrest of a Person alongwith the Material to the Adjudicating Authority and its Period of Retention) Rules, 2005. It is submitted that as per Rule 6, it is provided that the Arresting Officer, while exercising powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act shall, sign the Arrest Order in Form III appended to these rules. The Form III, read as follows; FORM III (See rule 6) ARREST ORDER Whereas, I........................................, Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director/Officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, have rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), I hereby arrest the said Shri Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal at 22.00 hours on 14.03.2016 and he has been informed of the grounds for such arrest. (emphasis supplied) Dated at Mumbai on this 14th day of March Two Thousand Sixteen. Arresting Officer Sd/- (Sanjay V. Kinjawadekar) Assistant Directorate Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai To Shri Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, 8th floor, Solitaire, Convent Avenue Road, S.V. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai. 187. Thus, perusal of the Arrest Order makes it clear that it is in the exact Form No.III, as given in the Rules referred above and therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there was noncompliance of any mandatory procedural safeguard. 188. The perusal of the Arrest Order also reveals that the Petitioner has been informed of the grounds for such arrest. The Arrest Order bears the signature of the Petitioner in acknowledgment of having received the same on the same night at about 22.05 hours. Therefore, unless something contrary is produced on record, it has to be presumed and held that the Petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and in ackn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... torate. 192. It is significant to note that at the stage when the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court, immediately on the next date, the Petitioner has not raised any grievance before the Special Court that he has not been communicated or informed the grounds of arrest. If it was really the fact that he was not communicated the grounds of arrest, as stated in the Arrest Order, which bears his signature, it goes without saying that the Petitioner, who was ably represented by his Senior Counsel at the time of his first remand and even for subsequent remands, would not have failed to raise this grievance, especially when the Special Court has even taken care to ask the Petitioner, whether he has any complaint. Thus, the Petitioner was given ample opportunity to raise the grievance, if he was really not informed of the grounds of his arrest. 193. It is also significant to note that the Petitioner has not raised this grievance about the grounds of arrest being not informed to him at the time of his arrest, not only when he was first produced for remand before the Magistrate but even thereafter also from time to time when he was remanded to Judicial Custody after the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State Government has suffered loss to the tune of ₹ 840.16 Crores; whereas, the Petitioner and the others have reaped undue gain of the said amount. The Special Court has observed the reasons why it found that cognizance needs to be taken of the offence, having regard to the specific allegation not only in respect of generation of the proceeds of crime, but also in its laundering and thereafter issued the process. Thus, there was sufficient material before the arresting authority for the reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w. Section 4 of the PML Act. If for such a serious offence in view of this prima facie material, Respondent No.2 had reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of moneylaundering and hence Respondent No.2 arrests the Petitioner and the Special Court remands him to Custody, then neither the arrest nor the detention of the Petitioner can be called as illegal to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus. 197. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , the economic offences, having deep rooted conspiracy and involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
