Skip to main content

Enforcement Directorate has the power to seek custody of a person arrested under PMLA Act

Cause Title : Megala vs Directorate of Enforcement Chennai, H.C.P. No. 1021 of 2023, Madras High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 14.07.2023

Corum : Honourable Mr. Justice C. V. Karthikeyan

Citied: 

  1. All India Anna Dravida Munnertra Kazhagam Vs. State Election Commissioner, (2007) 2 MLJ 129
  2. Y.Balaji Vs. Karthik Desari and Another, 2023 SCC Online SC 645
  3. Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [2021 SCC Online SC 3302]
  4. Madhu Limaye and Others 1969 1 SCC 292
  5. House of Lords, R Vs May, [2005 EWCA Crime 97]
  6. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India, [2022 SCC Online 929]
  7. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and another, 1994 3 SCC 440
  8. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs. Ramesh Malik and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine 1465
  9. P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24
  10. Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell – I, New Delhi Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, 1992 3 SCC 141
  11. Budh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2000) 9 SCC 266
  12. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Vikas Mishra, 2023 SCC OnLine 377

Background

The issue was the habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a sitting minister arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. When the matter came up before the coordinated bench, the two judges differed on the issue of the powers of the Enforcement Directorate to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. One judge held that the Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with such powers while the other judge held that the Directorate had such powers.

Faced with such a split verdict, the Chief Justice entrusted Justice Karthikeyan to break the deadlock. Hence this order.

Judgment

The Hon'ble Judge observed that the whole process started with the judgment of the Super Court in Y.Balaji  (supra).

After arrest, the manner of dealing with a offender involved in offence of money-laundering would be governed by the provisions of the 1973 Code - as there are no inconsistent provisions in the 2002 Act in regard to production of the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twenty-four hours and also filing of the complaint before the Special Court within the statutory period prescribed in the 1973 Code for filing of police report, if not released on bail before expiry thereof.

As per Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whenever a person is arrested and it appears that the investigation will not be completed within 24 hours, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub- inspector shall produce the accused before the magistrate.
While Section 167(2) states that the magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole;

The dispute is created by the reference to police officer in subsection (1) and the term "such custody" in subsection 2 and the contention of the appellants that ED personal are not police officers and therefore cannot demand custody.

Referring to the above judgments, the Hon'ble judge decided that :-

  • Enforcement Directorate are not police officials and are not required to be so under the PMLA Act
  • The offence of money- laundering is cognizable and non-bailable and can be inquired into and investigated by the Authority under the 2002 Act alone.
  • Under The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“2002 Act”), money-laundering is an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently.
  • The factum of arrest is only a step in investigation. There cannot be a foreclosure of investigation or further enquiry, merely because a person has been arrested. Investigation or enquiry into the offence can continue, till a complaint is lodged and even thereafter, if further materials are collected investigation or enquiry can continue. The respondents have a right to conduct investigate / enquiry after arrest. This can never be denied to the respondents herein. If such enquiry / investigation is to be done only by taking the person arrested into custody, then this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine the reasons stated therein. It is the Special Court which has the privilege to examine that particular aspect and pass orders.
Note:
This order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 7/8/2023 in V . Senthil Balaji vs The State Represented By Deputy Director And Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 2288-2289 Of 2023


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more