SC upholds PMLA arrest validity despite ED not providing copy of arrest grounds document to accused

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging the legality of an arrest under Section 19 of PMLA 2002. The appellant contended that ED's failure to provide a copy of the arrest grounds document (after taking it back post-signature) rendered the arrest illegal. The SC relied on the three-judge bench precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, which upheld Section 19's constitutional validity. Since the appellant was informed of arrest grounds and signed an endorsement acknowledging receipt, the court held there was due compliance with Section 19 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest of the appellant by the ED under Section 19 of PMLA.
2. Compliance with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Legality of the Arrest:
The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest by the ED on the grounds that he was not furnished with a copy of the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest, claiming it violated Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The appellant argued that mere informing the accused orally and obtaining his signature without providing a written copy did not meet legal requirements. The respondent ED countered that the arrest was in accordance with Section 19 of PMLA, asserting that the grounds of arrest were handed over to the appellant, who read and signed them.

Compliance with Informing Grounds of Arrest:
The court analyzed the requirement under Section 19 of PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that a person must be informed of the grounds of arrest. The court referred to the precedent set in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 19 of PMLA, stating that informing the person of the grounds of arrest orally is sufficient compliance. The court also considered the recent decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which directed that a copy of the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person henceforth, meaning from the date of that judgment.

Analysis of Compliance:
The court emphasized that the expression "as soon as may be" in Section 19 of PMLA implies informing the arrested person within a reasonable time, ideally within 24 hours. The court found that the appellant was informed of the grounds of arrest and had acknowledged this by signing the document. Therefore, there was sufficient compliance with Section 19 of PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's arrest was legal and in compliance with the statutory and constitutional requirements. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.

---