2023 (6) TMI 247 - HC - Money Laundering

Court grants custody for custodial interrogation in money laundering case, emphasizing safety and progress.

The court quashed the rejection of the remand application and granted custody of the respondent for four days for custodial interrogation in connection ... Custodial remand - medical fitness for custody and interrogation - duty to protect health and safety under Section 55A of the Cr.P.C. - rights during interrogation under Section 50 of the PMLA - transfer of custody for purpose of interrogationMedical fitness for custody and interrogation - duty to protect health and safety under Section 55A of the Cr.P.C. - Validity of the Special Designated Judge's rejection of remand on the ground of the accused's high blood pressure and apprehension for his safety. - HELD THAT: - The High Court examined the medical check-up certificate placed on record and noted that the only medical condition recorded was high blood pressure, with no other ailment preventing custodial interrogation. The Court held that such a medical condition could be managed by administering medication and, if necessary, by assistance from a medical practitioner while in custody. The Court further observed that Section 55A Cr.P.C. imposes on the authority taking custody a duty to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of an accused; consequently, an apprehension about risk to life does not by itself justify denial of remand when the investigating agency is under a statutory duty to ensure the accused's safety. The Court therefore found the rejection of remand on the stated grounds to be unjustified. [Paras 12]Rejection of remand solely on the ground of high blood pressure and apprehended risk to life was not justified; the investigating authority is duty-bound under Section 55A Cr.P.C. to take reasonable care of the accused's health and safety.Custodial remand - transfer of custody for purpose of interrogation - rights during interrogation under Section 50 of the PMLA - Whether the Directorate of Enforcement was entitled to custody of the accused for custodial interrogation and the appropriate relief to be granted. - HELD THAT: - Having quashed the Special Designated Judge's order rejecting remand, the High Court granted the Directorate of Enforcement the remand of the accused for custodial interrogation. The Court observed that the accused had been examined under Section 50 of the PMLA and, given the investigating agency's need to confront the accused with evidence and trace proceeds, directed that custody be taken from Taloja Central Prison for a limited period. The remand was confined to a discrete period to permit custodial interrogation while leaving open the statutory safeguards applicable to the accused. [Paras 13]Order dated 8.4.2023 is quashed and set aside; remand to the Directorate of Enforcement granted for four days and custody to be taken from Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai.Final Conclusion: The High Court quashed the Special Designated Judge's refusal to remand the accused on medical-safety grounds, held that the investigating agency must ensure the accused's health and safety under Section 55A Cr.P.C., and directed that the Directorate of Enforcement be granted custody of the accused for four days for custodial interrogation. Issues involved:Challenge to rejection of remand application under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.Details of the judgment:1. The Directorate of Enforcement challenged the order rejecting the remand application of Anil Bhagwandas Jaisinghani, citing intelligence on a Havala racket in international cricket betting. The search of a farm house led to seizure of incriminating documents and observations of IPC offenses. Statements indicated involvement in betting activities and use of forged sim cards, leading to a case being filed. A case was registered against Jaisinghani for proceeds of crime identification. Despite non-cooperation during searches and summons, Jaisinghani remained absconding.2. Jaisinghani was in judicial custody in Mumbai, and a transfer warrant was obtained for custodial interrogation in connection with money laundering offenses. The applicant sought custody for interrogation, highlighting Jaisinghani's possession of proceeds of crime and involvement in various criminal cases across states. The remand application was rejected on medical grounds of high blood pressure, with the respondent fearing for his life in custody.3. The rejection was based solely on high blood pressure, with no imminent danger noted. The duty of the applicant to ensure the health and safety of the accused during interrogation was emphasized. The respondent's apprehensions about safety were deemed unfounded, as the investigating officer was responsible for the accused's well-being.4. The judgment quashed the earlier order and granted remand of the respondent for four days, to be taken from Taloja Central Prison in Maharashtra. The decision was based on the need for custodial interrogation to proceed with the investigation into money laundering offenses.