Jurisprudence on Arrest, Interrogation under PMLA and ED having wide powers to be exercised in most transparent and fair manner

PANKAJ BANSAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT]

Mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19

It is not open to the ED to expect an admission of guilt from the person summoned for interrogation and assert that anything short of such admission would be an ‘evasive reply’.

ED being a premier investigating agency, charged with the onerous responsibility of curbing the debilitating economic offence of money laundering in our country, every action of the ED in the course of such exercise is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action. The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness. In the case on hand, the facts demonstrate that the ED failed to discharge its functions and exercise its powers as per these parameters.

Magistrate is under a bounden duty to see to it that Section 19 of the Act of 2002 is duly complied with and any failure would entitle the arrestee to get released.

16. In terms of Section 19(3) of the Act of 2002 and the law laid down in the above decisions, Section 167 Cr.P.C. would necessarily have to be complied with once an arrest is made under Section 19 of the Act of 2002.

It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the Act of 2002, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.

35. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.