PMLA summons and arrest safeguards: late-night examination deprecated, but arrest and remand upheld within 24-hour limits.
A person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA is not treated as an accused until arrest under Section 19, and production before the Special Court within 24 hours of arrest, even after excluding travel time, does not render arrest or remand illegal. The Court also deprecated recording Section 50 statements at late-night hours, holding that summonsed persons should ordinarily be examined during reasonable hours because prolonged sleep deprivation is inconsistent with Article 21. It directed the Enforcement Directorate to issue appropriate circulars on timing, but this did not affect the outcome on arrest and remand.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's arrest and remand were illegal for alleged non-compliance with the requirement of production within 24 hours and before the nearest Magistrate. (ii) Whether recording the petitioner's statement late at night under summons issued under the PMLA was improper and warranted directions to the Enforcement Directorate.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's arrest and remand were illegal for alleged non-compliance with the requirement of production within 24 hours and before the nearest Magistrate.
Analysis: The petitioner entered the Enforcement Directorate office pursuant to a summons under Section 50 of the PMLA and was not treated as an accused at that stage. The Court held that a person summoned under Section 50 is "any person" and not necessarily an accused, while arrest takes place only under Section 19 of the PMLA when material exists to form the requisite belief. On the facts, the petitioner was arrested at 5:30 a.m. and produced before the Special Court at about 5:00 p.m. the same day. Even if the period spent in travel from Delhi to Mumbai was excluded, production was still within the permissible time. The Court also held that the expression "nearest Magistrate" in Section 167 is relevant where the jurisdictional court cannot be reached within 24 hours, and no illegality arose from production directly before the Special Court in Mumbai.
Conclusion: The arrest and remand were not illegal and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether recording the petitioner's statement late at night under summons issued under the PMLA was improper and warranted directions to the Enforcement Directorate.
Analysis: The Court deprecated the practice of recording statements under Section 50 of the PMLA at unearthly hours. It held that a person summoned under that provision should ordinarily have the statement recorded during earthly hours, since such person is not yet an accused and cannot be deprived of basic human needs such as sleep beyond a reasonable time. The Court treated the deprivation of sleep as inconsistent with Article 21 and observed that consent to late-night recording was immaterial. It therefore directed the Enforcement Directorate to issue appropriate circulars or directions regarding timings for recording statements under Section 50.
Conclusion: The practice was disapproved and directions were issued to the Enforcement Directorate, but it did not alter the dismissal of the petition.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the challenge to arrest and remand, while the Court separately issued advisory directions to curb late-night recording of statements under PMLA summons.
Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA is not an accused until arrest under Section 19, and where production before the Special Court occurs within 24 hours of arrest after excluding travel time, no illegality in arrest or remand is made out.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
