TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. Even otherwise, if one look at the scheme of PMLA it shows arrest needs to be made only under Section 19(1) of the Act after completion of process under Section 17(1) and 18(1) and the accused is to be produced before the concerned court within 24 hours of his arrest under Section 19(1). The arrest is only under Section 19(1) of the Act after the formalities under Section 17(1) and Section 18(1) are complete viz. the search and seizure is made and the officer has in his possession the material to proceed further. Once the person is arrested under Section 19(1) he needs to be produced before the Special Court within twenty four hours per Section 19(3) of the Act. Section 19(3) rather clarifies it is only after the arrest is made under Section 19(1), the person needs to be produced within twenty four hours before the Court. Admittedly, in this petition there is no challenge to this scheme of the Act hence the petitioner cannot allege his arrest made by following the above procedure is illegal. Admittedly per facts, the officers on the basis of information per Section 17(1) had entered the building at 8.30 AM; conducted search per Section 18(1) till 3 PM and recorded stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another (1990) 1 BOM CR 451 wherein the Court held: 10. It is thus clear that arrest being a restraint on the personal liberty, it is complete when such restraint by an authority, commences. Whether a person is arrested or not does not depend on the legality of the act. It is enough if an authority clothed with the power to arrest, actually imposes the restraint by physical act or words. Whether a person is arrested depends on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases. It stands to reason, therefore, that what label the Investigating Officer affixes to his act of restraint is irrelevent. For the same reason, the record of the time of arrest is not an index to the actual time of arrest, the arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the accused and not with the time of arrest recorded by the Arresting Officers. 4. Further in Ramu vs. State of Karnataka ILR 1991 KAR 1861 the Court held: A man can be in custody without his being formally arrested when restriction is imposed on his movements either by police surveillance or some other restriction by the police. Arrest commences with the restraint placed on the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to why the petition is liable to be dismissed. In other words, neither there is any discussion and nor the reasoning on the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In our view, such approach of the High Court while disposing of the petition cannot be countenanced. Time and again, this Court has emphasized the necessity of giving reasons in support of the conclusion because it is the reason, which indicates the application of mind. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Court to assign the reasons as to why the petition is allowed or rejected, as the case may be. 8. Heard. 9. The short question involved is if the time of arrest of petitioner is 8:30 PM of 03.08.2021 or 7:55 PM of 03.08.2021. 10. Admittedly, the search started on 03.08.2021 in the premises of the petitioner at 8:30 AM and it continued till afternoon uptil 3 o clock and thereafter the petitioner was taken to office of respondent for recording of his statement. It was recorded till 7.55 PM when he was arrested. He was then produced on 04.08.2021 at about 4 PM before the learned Court. The question is whether he was produced before Court within 24 hours of his arrest. For examining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it differently, the taking of the person into judicial custody is followed after the arrest of the person concerned by the Magistrate on appearance or surrender. It will be appropriate, at this stage, to note that in every arrest, there is custody but not vice versa and that both the words 'custody' and 'arrest' are not synonymous terms. Though 1 custody' may amount to an arrest in certain circumstances but not under all circumstances. If these two terms are interpreted as synonymous, it is nothing but an ultra legalist interpretation which if under all circumstances accepted and adopted, would lead to a startling anomaly resulting in serious consequences, vide Roshan Beevi. 11. Further in Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 1984 Cri.Lj. 134 Full Bench of Madras High Court held as under: 2. One of the main grounds raised in all these writ petitions on the strength of an observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Balasubrah manyan, J. and M.N. Moorthy, J. in [ Kaiser Otmar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 Mad LW (Cri) 158 : (1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 208) is that the detenu should be deemed to have been arreste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titution of India, would arise only if that person is arrested and detained in custody. 12. Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh and another vs. The State 1970 Cri.Lj. 325 also notes : xxx It may be convenient at this stage to set out the precise position in regard to what happened in the present case after the accused persons were apprehended at 2 a.m. somewhere near Bassein. When it was decided that the panchnama should be made in Bombay, and not at the lonely place at which the accused persons had been apprehended, the police party, the panchas and the accused persons came to Bombay and reached Churchgate at about 9 a.m. as is clear from the evidence of Superintendent Wagh as well as the panchnama (Ex. 12). The panchnama (Ex. 12) was then continued in Bombay and was concluded at as late an hour as 2 p.m. as is shown by what is recorded at the foot of the said panchnama itself, and it is not surprising that it should have taken so long, having regard to the fact that the quantity of gold in respect of which the panchnama was made was as large a quantity as 6920 Tolas contained in four gunny bags which, in their turn, contained seven jackets with innumerable small pocket ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering, or (iii) is in possession of any records relating to money-laundering, then, subject to the rules made in this behalf, he may authorise any officer subordinate to him to- xxx 18. Search of persons. - (1) If an authority, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has secreted about his person or in anything under his possession, ownership or control, any record or proceeds of crime which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, he may search that person and seize such record or property which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act. 19. Power to arrest.- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the 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 person and shall, as soon as may be, inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
