9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be different; but since those aspects are not central to the decision of the legal issues involved, the matters are amenable to disposal by way of this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are challenging their arrests in case FIR No. 111/2024 dated 30.05.2024 registered under sections 120-B/420/468/467/ 471/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') at P.S. : Crime Branch, Delhi and ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-II/13/2024 dated 31.05.2024 registered by respondents Nos. 2 and 3/Directorate of Enforcement ('ED') under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA'); as well as their consequent remand to judicial custody vide various orders as detailed in their respective petitions. 3. The court has heard Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(CRL) No. 2241/2024; Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC (Criminal) appearing for the State; and Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned special counsel appearing for the ED. As recorded in order dated 09.04.2025, Mr. Raktim Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(CRL) No.2391/2024 has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Chaudhari. 4. The principal contention of the petitioners is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24, the ED filed a police complaint with P.S. : Crime Branch, Delhi, which led to the registration of FIR No. 111/2024 dated 30.05.2024 against the petitioners, leading to their arrest on 31.05.2024 by P.S.: Crime Branch; whereafter the petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate, who remanded them to police custody till 02.06.2024. 5.5. Treating the offences alleged in the subject FIR as predicate or scheduled offences, the ED then proceeded to register an Economic Crime Information Report bearing No. ECIR/HIU-II/13/2024 dated 31.05.2024 alleging commission of offences under the PMLA. 5.6. Since the petitioners were lodged in jail upon their arrest in the subject FIR, on 10.06.2024 the ED filed an application before the learned Sessions Court seeking permission to examine the petitioners in relation to the subject ECIR under section 50(2) of the PMLA. The said application was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned ASJ, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereupon the ED recorded the statements of Manideep Mago and Sanjay Sethi in jail under section 50 of the PMLA on 13.06.2024 and 02.07.2024 respectively. Thereupon the ED proceeded to arrest the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid petitioner was remanded to ED custody till 11.07.2024; after which he was remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 11.07.2024, where he continues to be till date. PETITIONERS' SUBMISSIONS 6. The principal grounds raised by the petitioners in challenge to their arrest by the ED in the subject ECIR and by the Delhi Police in the subject FIR, are the following : 6.1. Firstly, the petitioners contend, that at worst, their acts and omissions called into question by the ED amount to violation of the provisions of FEMA, which statute contemplates only civil penalty for those infractions; and since that is so, the underlying actions of such acts and omissions also cannot be punished as criminal offences. The essence of the argument is that FEMA was brought-in to replace Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') with the objective of decriminalizing acts and omissions relating to foreign exchange transactions; and therefore, an act or omission that violates FEMA cannot be subject matter of criminal action by way of an FIR, since that would in effect bring-back the criminal provisions of FERA through the backdoor. 6.2. Secondly, it is the petitioners' submission that regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted in 1973, was repealed by Parliament since at the relevant time the Indian economy was undergoing liberalization, privatization and globalization and the Legislature felt the need for relaxing control over the foreign exchange market. To this end, in its 11th Report presented to the Lok Sabha on 23.12.1998, the Standing Committee on Finance (1998-99) made the following observations : "9. ... ... The liability for contravention of an offence under FEMA has been made civil as compared to the criminal one under FERA. The Enforcement Directorate has been entrusted with the same powers as are conferred on the Income Tax authorities under Chapter XIII of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Certain onerous provisions of FERA, 1973 viz. preparation/attempts to contravene any provisions which were deemed to be contraventions under Section 64 and provisions relating to burden of proof have been deleted. A new provision which is an improvement over FERA is with regard to the powers of compounding the contraventions. ......" 8. The petitioners contend that the intention of the Legislature in repealing FERA was clear, namely, that no act or omission relating to a foreign exchange transaction was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and all of them were paying him a sum less than Rs 50000 each. He claimed that he did not collect their KYC and created bogus receipts and also generated fabricated entries in his Tally Software. He made this elaborate arrangement and created fabricated entries so that he could show that he was doing genuine crypto-mining business. Further, all the pooled money in his Bank accounts was remitted to the Bank accounts of his M/s Mozire Technologies Limited Hong Kong on the pretext of import of software services. ... ... On being asked the receipt of money from thousands of alleged Indian clients, Manideep Mago stated that he had sold software testing tools to different individuals through online mode and received amount in cash. It was also found that, such invoices were raised in interval of every 2-3 days and all payments were received in cash only. It further revealed that, Manideep Mago didn't have any details of persons to whom these Penetration Testing Tool were sold. He further stated that, the tool kit includes Kali Linux and E-Book written by him (Manideep) as told by him. As per his version, he first used to receive cash payment from buyers at his office, then allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter motive. Outward remittances have been sent illegally to Hong Kong and Canada. ... ... Further this invoice bears a stamp having following description:- NOTARY GOVT OF INDIA G.P. SINGH South West Delhi Regd. No. 16965, Register Entry number 2-C/2022 Date 28 MAR 2022 Title of Documenting genesis Invoice. ATTESTED Notary Public, Delhi 28 MAR 2022. This also bears signatures of above Notary Public. There are several other stamps of different of different dates in this document. It was found that, the document itself was generated on 15-03-2023 and the notary entry mentioned is of 28 march 2022. The anti dated notarization of documents points towards it being forged and fabricated. Confession by Mr Manideep Mago: During the recording of the statements u/s 37 of FEMA r/w Sec 132 IT. Act, Mr Manideep has admitted that his wife is also a Director in his entities. He finally admitted that he has indulged in international hawala of Rs 3500 Crore. He admitted to creating fabricated documents to facilitate the hawala and cheat the system. He is yet to explain the source of crypto worth Rs 1850 Crore which was credited into his Zebpay Wallet from Binance Wallets. It is also noticed that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441 at para 30, Yashwant Singh & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 338 at paras 108, 110, 112 & 114, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi & Anr. (2021) 18 SCC 135 at para 26, Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri & Ors. (2023) 14 SCC 1 at para 60 and Rana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024:RJ-JD:33404 at paras 24 & 25. 10.3. The petitioners have cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd.to argue that the alleged confession of the petitioners recorded by the ED under section 37 of the FEMA is inadmissible in evidence; and that statements recorded under one law can only be used for purposes of the law under which they are recorded and cannot be used to initiate proceedings under any other law. The petitioners have also drawn attention to the most recent decision of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal cf. paras 47, 56-57, & 61-62 to stress that guilt can only be established on the basis of admissible evidence and not on inadmissible evidence. 10.4. In support of their third contention, namely that the petitioners' arrest by P.S. : Crime Branch is illegal, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ED. 10.6. In support of their proposition that mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to summons issued under section 50 PMLA does not render a noticee liable for arrest under section 19, the petitioners have drawn attention to the decision of Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary cf. paras 431 & 449, Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 7 SCC 576 at paras 11 & 28 and Prem Prakash vs. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 787 at paras 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 & 34. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE'S SUBMISSIONS 11. On behalf of the respondents, the ED has defended the arrests made in the subject ECIR, and the Delhi Police have defended the arrests made in the subject FIR. It may be noted that there is little contestation, if any, insofar as the factual scenario is concerned; and the respondents are essentially contesting the legal propositions argued on behalf of the petitioners. 12. It is the ED's allegation that between 2016 and 2019, a sum of about Rs. 2,886 crores was deposited in various bank accounts belonging to the petitioners and/or their business entities. The ED has sought to clarify, that according to them, on point of fact, this money was part of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, forgery, destruction of evidence etc. 15.2. It has been pointed-out that there is no provision in FEMA which ousts the application of other laws or the jurisdiction of other law enforcement agencies to initiate action for offences under those laws, if such offences are made-out in the process of making foreign exchange transactions. The ED has argued that if the petitioner's contention - viz. that after enactment of FEMA, any criminal offence committed in the course of making a foreign exchange stands nullified - is to be accepted, it would lead to 'implied repeal' of the IPC; and grant of immunity from prosecution to a person for any offence under the IPC merely because the offence is committed while making a foreign exchange transaction. 15.3. It has also been argued that the petitioners have failed to show how the allegations made in the subject FIR, which constitute cognizable offences under the IPC, are covered within the ambit of FEMA, to say that neither forgery nor cheating can be prosecuted under FEMA. 15.4. It has been submitted that it is settled law, that the same set of acts may give a rise to an offence under different statutes, which is the case here. [Monica B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under section 19, only came into effect from the date of pronouncement of the said verdict i.e., on 12.07.2024; whereas in the present case the petitioners were arrested by the ED on 14.06.2024 and 03.07.2024. Pertinently, it is pointed-out that though in Arvind Kejriwal cf. paras 49 and 65 reasons to believe were not supplied to the arrestee, yet the Supreme Court upheld his arrest. 15.8. It has been submitted that the petitioners were arrested in compliance with the prevailing law of the land as of their dates of arrest; and a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Arvind Dham vs. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8490 has held that for arrests made prior to 12.07.2024, there was no requirement for the ED to supply the reasons to believe to an arrestee; and special leave petition bearing SLP(Crl.) No.17357/2024 filed against Arvind Dham stands dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.12.2024. 15.9. The ED has further contended that section 19 of the PMLA has been duly complied-with in the present case, since copies of the arrest orders alongwith the material in their possession was immediately sent to the adjudicating authority via e-mail on the very same day the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of their search and seizure operations, the ED recovered bogus invoices, unused notary stamps, and such other material and evidence from the petitioners' premises, all of which have formed the basis of the subject FIR. 15.11. The ED has also argued that in Lalita Kumari, the Supreme Court has held that considerations such as whether information given is genuine or credible, or whether it has been given falsely, are not relevant at the stage of registration of an FIR. Furthermore, it has been contended that there is no absolute bar on statements recorded in certain proceedings being used in another proceedings under another statute; [Vinod M. Chitalia vs. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 476 at para 21] and that in any case, impropriety in obtaining evidence will not affect its admissibility, if it is otherwise relevant. [Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation) & Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 345 at paras 23-24] Reliance in support of this submission has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 471. 15.12. It has also been pointed-out that those parts of the petitioners' statements which amount to 'admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in compulsory registration of FIRs", the Ministry has issued clear instructions for compulsory registration of an FIR on receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence. It has accordingly been argued that a preliminary enquiry is not necessary in relation to the offences of forgery and cheating; and in any case, it has been held that an FIR does not stand vitiated merely because a preliminary enquiry was not conducted. State of Telangana vs. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 at paras 32 & 34 and Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi at para 2. 15.17. It has further been argued that the petitioners' contention that the subject FIR was registered only so that a scheduled offence became available for the ED to invoke its powers under PMLA, is also misplaced and deserves to be rejected, since the search and seizure operations conducted under FEMA led to recovery of material that disclosed the commission of cognizable offences in addition to FEMA violations. 15.18. The ED has contended, that as per inputs received from their intelligence department, the petitioners and their companies have sold very large amounts of crypto assets worth about Rs.1,858 crores on an Indian crypto exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity can be invoked by filing a civil suit for recovery of money; while the criminal liability can be raised by way of a criminal complaint seeking punishment under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 16.3. The Delhi Police have also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 145 at paras 6 & 7, to submit that while dealing with the same question under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 ('FSS Act'), the Supreme Court has held that non-compliance with the provisions of section 55 of the FSS Act can also be subject matter of prosecution under the IPC; and that action can be initiated against defaulters both under section 55 of the FSS Act as well as under section 188 of the IPC. It has been argued that the law is that such action would not amount to double jeopardy. [State of Rajasthan vs. Hat Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 152 at paras 11 & 14]. 16.4. It has also been argued on behalf of the Delhi Police that in the present case there are specific allegations of criminal conspiracy, which can by no stretch of imagination be covered within the ambit of FEMA. In fact, it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... islature enacts laws with complete knowledge of existing laws pertaining to the same subject; and the failure to add a repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal existing legislation. The submission is that for invoking the doctrine of implied repeal, there must be repugnancy between two statutes, as has been held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Deep Chand & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1959 SC 648. It has been argued that on a conjoint reading of IPC and FEMA, no such repugnancy arises or exists, since the two statutes do not occupy the same field and work within their separate and distinct domains. Attention in this behalf has been drawn to the objects of FERA and FEMA, to point-out that those laws were enacted with the purpose of regulating foreign exchange transactions, and to conserve foreign exchange reserves and ensure compliance with economic policies, the focus of the laws being on procedural and technical compliance within a narrow regulatory framework; and for penalising violations through administrative measures of civil penalties. On the other hand, it has been submitted that the IPC is the general criminal law of the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n created by the petitioners, since no actual purchase of crypto-currency mining tools as indicated in those invoices was found. 16.10. It has also been argued that pursuant to registration of the subject FIR, other substantial evidence has been gathered in the course of investigation and a chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners before the concerned court; and cognizance of the offences has also been taken by that court. 16.11. Apropos the requirement for furnishing to the petitioners the 'grounds of arrest' as distinct from the 'reasons of arrest', the Delhi Police have argued that they have fully complied with the requirements of the law laid-down by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha, inasmuch as the grounds of arrest, viz. the specific bases for arresting each of the petitioners were set-out by the Investigating Officer in their respective arrest memos. It has further been argued that though there is a mandate to serve the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee, the Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any specific format in which grounds of arrest are to be served and there is no bar in law against incorporating grounds of arrest within the arrest memo, which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Question II: Was the registration of the subject FIR by the Delhi Police valid and legal ? 17.3. Question III: Was the petitioners' arrest by the ED in the subject ECIR valid and legal ? 17.4. Question IV : Was the petitioners' arrest by the Delhi Police in the subject FIR valid and legal ? 18. It must be noted that the petitioners have only challenged their arrest; and the present petitions have not been filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking release on bail. Re : Question I 19. Though much stress has been laid by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners on the argument that this court must appreciate the 'mischief' that the Legislature had sought to remedy by enacting FEMA, in the opinion of this court, that proposition is not contested, since there is no doubt even in the minds of the ED, that FEMA was enacted to decriminalise infractions relating to foreign exchange transaction. There is no contest with the proposition that once FEMA was enacted, the criminality that used to attach to infractions relating to foreign exchange transactions under FERA, got converted into civil penalty, with no penal consequences. 20. However, the relevant question is wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as stated above is for promoting orderly development and maintenance of foreign exchange market in India. Preventive detention law is for effectively keeping out of circulation the detenu during a prescribed period by means of preventive detention (Poonam Lata v. M.L. Wadhawan [(1987) 3 SCC 347 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 506] ). ... ... "11. Hence, in our view, the order passed by the High Court holding that what was considered to be the criminal violation of FERA has ceased to be criminal offence under FEMA, the detention order cannot be continued after 1-6-2000, cannot be justified. "12. Further, if the view taken by the High Court and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent are accepted, it would result in implied repeal of substantial part of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. One of the established principles of interpretation of the statutory provisions is that courts as a rule lean against implied repeal unless the provisions are plainly repugnant to each other. There is also a presumption against repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of the existing laws on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes. 3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results. 4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field." (emphasis supplied) 23. The same proposition was answered by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision, Narayan K. Patodia, which arose from an order of the Calcutta High Court quashing an FIR registered for offences under the IPC and the W.B. Sales Tax Act, where the High Court had taken the view that a case of suspected evasion of tax can only be investigated by the Bureau of Investigation under the W.B. Sales Tax Act and no police officer can investigate any such offence under the IPC. The Supreme Court set-aside this view, with the following observations : "8. It is apparent that learned Single Judge has not been apprised of the danger involved in adopting such a far-fetched legal pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do the two statutes viz., FEMA and IPC, occupy or operate in the same field; nor do they contain any inconsistent or repugnant or irreconcilable provisions. FEMA replaced FERA with the objective of facilitating external trade and payments and for promoting the orderly development and maintenance of the foreign exchange market in India; [Dropti Devi at para 63] while IPC is the codified substantive penal law of the country, which deals with punishing conventional crimes. 25. In the opinion of this court, the civil wrongs alleged to have been committed by the petitioners relating to foreign exchange transactions under FEMA cannot be viewed as having been committed in one fell swoop with all preceding actions and omissions that the petitioners committed in preparation of the civil wrongs. As per the allegations, the foreign exchange transactions that are subject matter of investigation by the ED under the provisions of the FEMA were preceded by several actions and omissions, such as forging of notarial stamps and fabrication of fake invoices, which amount to criminal offences under the IPC; and these offences were committed even before the petitioners committed the civil wrongs unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IPC dealing with conventional crimes. 28. To be absolutely clear, the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and related offences of which the petitioners are accused under the IPC, do not get obliterated or subsumed or cease to be penal offences, merely because they were the underlying actions for the infractions of foreign exchange regulations. Pertinently, the penal offences were complete in themselves before the infraction of the provisions of FEMA took place. 29. In the opinion of this court therefore, the petitioners' submission that they cannot be prosecuted for offences under the IPC cannot be accepted. Re : Question II 30. The next question which must be addressed relates to registration of the subject FIR based on the ED's complaint. The petitioners contend that since the ED's complaint was based on the search and seizure operation conducted by that agency, an FIR could not have been registered based only on that complaint. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that a perusal of the subject FIR would show that the same has been lodged based on a so-called confessional statement of petitioner Manideep Mago recorded under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but, apart from exceptional cases (as contained in Section 21), such a statement cannot be proved by or on their behalf. While on this point the distinction between "admission" and "confession" needs to be appreciated. In absence of any definition of "confession" in the Act judicial opinion, as to its exact meaning, was not unanimous until the Judicial Committee made an authoritative pronouncement about the same in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor [AIR 1939 PC 47 : (1939) 40 Cri LJ 364] with these words: "[A] confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession, e.g., an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused a death with no explanation of any other man's possession. Some confusion appears to have been caused by the definition of 'confession' in Article 22 of the Stephen's 'Digest of the Law of Evidence' which defines a confession as 'an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be inadmissible, but if it does not amount to a confession, it will be admissible under Section 21 of the Act as an admission, provided that it suggests an inference as to a fact which is in issue in, or relevant to, the case and was not made to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, a statement made by an accused person is admissible against others who are being jointly tried with him only if the statement amounts to a confession. Where the statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against its maker as an admission and not against those who are being jointly tried with him. Therefore, from the point of view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act also the distinction between an admission and a confession is of fundamental importance." (emphasis supplied)" 34. In the present case, in his statement recorded under section 37 of the FEMA Manideep Mago does not appear to have confessed to committing any offence, and therefore, it would appear that at worst, the statement merely contains some admissions on his part. As a result, even if some parts of the subject FIR are based on Manideep Mago ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not." (emphasis supplied) 36. In the present case, there can be no cavil that the complaint received by the police from the ED did disclose the commission of cognizable offences; and therefore the law mandated that the police must register an FIR; and they cannot be faulted for having done so. Re : Question III 37. The petitioners have also questioned their arrest by the ED in the subject ECIR on the ground that their arrest is vitiated since the ED were liable to furnish to them 'reasons to believe' as required under section 19 (1) of the PMLA. 38. This contention must be rejected based on the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Arvind Dham cf. para 40, where it has been held that the requirement for furnishing 'reasons to believe' to an arrestee is an additional requirement which arose, for the first time, when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in Arvind Kejriwal on 12.07.2024; and that therefore, that additional requirement is applicable only for arrests made after that date. This court would only observe that since what the Supreme Court articulated in Arvind Kejriwal was an additional requirement, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his aspect is concerned, the petitioners' argument is premised on the settled principle for a valid arrest as laid-down by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha, namely that grounds of arrest were not served upon them in writing by the Delhi Police, which renders their arrest by the Delhi Police invalid and illegal. 43. The Delhi Police have answered this contention by submitting that the Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any specific format in which grounds of arrest are to be served upon an arrestee in writing; and that in the present case, the Investigating Officer had incorporated the grounds of arrest in the arrest memo itself. 44. The Delhi Police are correct in pointing-out that in a recent decision rendered by this Bench in Marfing Tamang, taking cue from the observations of a Co-ordinate Bench in Pranav Kuckreja, this Bench has suggested that a column be incorporated in the format of an arrest memo itself, where the investigating officer can set-out the grounds of arrest, to obviate the need for issuing to an arrestee a separate piece of writing, which would also ensure that the grounds of arrest are communicated to an arrestee simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
