2016 (12) TMI 1014 - HC - Money Laundering

Court upholds arrest under PML Act, dismisses Habeas Corpus petition

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, Ms. Anjali Damaniya, Versus Union of India,

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, Ms. Anjali Damaniya, Versus Union of India, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of Arrest: Whether the arrest of the Petitioner was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the PML Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).2. Authorization of Arresting Officer: Whether the officer who arrested the Petitioner was authorized under the PML Act.3. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards: Whether the arrest complied with constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.4. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition: Whether the Petition for Habeas Corpus is maintainable given that the Petitioner was in judicial custody authorized by a competent court.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Arrest:The Petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as the offenses under the PML Act are non-cognizable, requiring compliance with Section 155(1) of the CrPC, which mandates obtaining a Magistrate's order before arrest. The Court, however, held that the PML Act is a complete code in itself, and Section 19 of the PML Act, which allows for arrest based on the reasonable belief of an authorized officer, does not require compliance with the CrPC provisions. The Court also noted that the PML Act provides an overriding effect over inconsistent laws, including the CrPC.2. Authorization of Arresting Officer:The Petitioner contended that the arrest by the Assistant Director was unauthorized as no specific notification was produced showing such authorization. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 19 of the PML Act explicitly includes the Assistant Director as an authorized officer. The Court also referred to notifications and internal orders confirming the Assistant Director's authority to arrest under the PML Act.3. Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards:The Petitioner claimed that his arrest violated Article 22 of the Constitution, which requires informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and producing them before a Magistrate within 24 hours. The Court found that the Petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest as evidenced by his signature on the arrest order. The Court also noted that the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court within the stipulated time, thus complying with Article 22.4. Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition:The Court emphasized that a Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable when a person is in judicial custody authorized by a competent court unless the remand order is without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The Court found that the Special Court had applied its mind and passed detailed remand orders, thereby validating the Petitioner’s custody. The Court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Kanu Sanyal and Manubhai R.P., to support its conclusion that the writ petition was not maintainable.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the arrest of the Petitioner was legal and authorized, and all procedural and constitutional safeguards were duly followed. The remand orders passed by the Special Court were found to be detailed and based on proper application of mind, thus validating the Petitioner’s detention. The Petition for Habeas Corpus was deemed not maintainable, and the rule was discharged.