TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable against detention pursuant to judicial remand orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal for want of compliance with the procedural safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including the question whether the offence was non-cognizable; and (iii) whether the arresting officer was competent to arrest the petitioner under the Act.
Issue (i): whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable against detention pursuant to judicial remand orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus can succeed only where the detention is shown to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. Where the accused is produced before the competent court and remanded after the court applies its mind to the material and the request for custody, the subsequent detention is judged on its own legality. The remand orders in the present case recorded reasons, considered the material, and were not shown to be mechanical or routine.
Conclusion: The writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable and the challenge to detention failed.
Issue (ii): whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal for want of compliance with the procedural safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including the question whether the offence was non-cognizable
Analysis: The Act contains its own scheme for arrest and investigation. Section 19 requires reason to believe based on material in possession and recording of reasons in writing, while Sections 65 and 71 give the Act overriding effect subject to inconsistency. The deletion of the cognizable-offence clause in Section 45 did not make offences under the Act non-cognizable. The Code provisions relied on by the petitioner, including those governing police investigation, did not override the special procedure under the Act. The arrest order substantially complied with the statutory form and the grounds of arrest were communicated.
Conclusion: The arrest was not held illegal on the ground of non-compliance with the Code or on the ground that the offence was non-cognizable.
Issue (iii): whether the arresting officer was competent to arrest the petitioner under the Act
Analysis: The Act expressly authorizes the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, and any other officer authorized by the Central Government to arrest a person on the requisite belief formed on material in possession. The court held that an Assistant Director appointed under the Act was competent to exercise the power of arrest, and that the rules and notifications did not curtail the statutory power conferred by Section 19.
Conclusion: The arresting officer was competent to arrest the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish any jurisdictional defect or procedural illegality sufficient to invalidate the arrest or the remand orders, and the petition for release had to fail.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the special statute provides a self-contained arrest and investigation mechanism and the remand order is passed by the competent court after application of mind, habeas corpus will not lie unless the arrest or detention is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or absolutely illegal.
TaxTMI 
