Habeas corpus and special statute procedure: judicial remand bars custody challenge, while PMLA arrests need not follow Chapter XII

Habeas corpus was unavailable against custody arising from a facially valid judicial remand order because the detention followed a competent court's order passed after hearing both sides and applying mind to the record; absent patent lack of jurisdiction, absolute illegality, or a wholly mechanical exercise, the custody remained judicial custody. Arrest and investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were also not invalid for want of Chapter XII compliance, because the special statute contains its own arrest and investigation framework and the general criminal procedure applies only where consistent with that law. The objections to custody, arrest, remand, and investigation therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be entertained against a remand order passed by a competent court after hearing the parties and considering the record; (ii) Whether the arrest and investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were invalid for non-compliance with Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be entertained against a remand order passed by a competent court after hearing the parties and considering the record.

Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable where detention follows an order of a competent court unless the order is shown to suffer from patent lack of jurisdiction, absolute illegality, or a wholly mechanical exercise. The remand order disclosed hearing of both sides, examination of the case file, and application of mind to relevant factors, and the detention was thus referable to judicial order rather than unlawful custody.

Conclusion: The habeas corpus remedy was not available, and the challenge to custody failed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest and investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were invalid for non-compliance with Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act contains its own provisions regarding investigation and arrest, and the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only where its provisions are not inconsistent with that special law. The power to arrest under the special statute depends upon the authorized officer's reason to believe based on material in possession, and the Act does not require compliance with the police-oriented procedure of registration of FIR or the other Chapter XII steps relied upon by the petitioner. The record showed material before the arresting authority and no basis to treat the arrest or remand as null or void.

Conclusion: The arrest and investigation were held to be valid, and the objections based on Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be untenable because the petitioner was in judicial custody pursuant to a reasoned remand order and the special statute governed arrest and investigation without the procedural requirements asserted by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Habeas corpus will not lie against custody pursuant to a facially valid judicial remand order, and where a special statute provides a complete and inconsistent procedural scheme, the general criminal procedure applies only to the extent it is not inconsistent with that special law.

---