PMLA complaint procedure: CrPC cognizance rules apply, summoned accused is not in custody, and post-cognizance arrest is barred.

On a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Code of Criminal Procedure provisions governing cognizance and examination of the complainant, including Sections 200 to 205, apply to Special Court proceedings because there is no inconsistency with the special statute. An accused who was not arrested during investigation and appears on summons is not in custody and need not seek bail merely for attendance, though the Special Court may require a bond under Section 88 or grant exemption from personal appearance under Section 205. Acceptance of a Section 88 bond does not amount to bail. After cognizance, the Enforcement Directorate cannot arrest that accused under Section 19 in the same complaint, but custody may be sought from the Special Court for further investigation where necessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including Sections 200 to 205, apply to the proceedings before the Special Court; (ii) whether an accused who was not arrested during investigation and appears pursuant to summons issued by the Special Court can be treated as being in custody or be compelled to seek bail, and whether the Special Court may require bonds under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) whether acceptance of bonds under Section 88 amounts to grant of bail and what follows on non-appearance after summons or breach of such bonds; (iv) whether, after cognizance on a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Enforcement Directorate can still exercise power of arrest under Section 19 against an accused named in the complaint, and when custody may be sought for further investigation.

Issue (i): Whether, on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including Sections 200 to 205, apply to the proceedings before the Special Court.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 44(1)(b) is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 contains no inconsistency with Sections 200 to 205. A Special Court taking cognizance must first consider whether a prima facie case is made out and then proceed under the scheme of Sections 200 to 204. The power under Section 205 to dispense with personal attendance is also available because there is no inconsistency with the special statute.

Conclusion: The provisions of Sections 200 to 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether an accused who was not arrested during investigation and appears pursuant to summons issued by the Special Court can be treated as being in custody or be compelled to seek bail, and whether the Special Court may require bonds under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: A summons issued on a complaint is meant to secure attendance, not to place the accused in custody. An accused who appears in obedience to summons is not deemed to be in custody, and therefore need not apply for bail merely because he has appeared before the Special Court. Section 437 does not apply to the Special Court in this setting. At the same time, Section 88 is an enabling provision that can be invoked by the Court to secure future attendance, and it may direct bonds where appropriate. The Court may also grant exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 on sufficient cause being shown.

Conclusion: An accused appearing pursuant to summons is not in custody and need not seek bail, though the Special Court may require bonds under Section 88 and may grant exemption under Section 205.

Issue (iii): Whether acceptance of bonds under Section 88 amounts to grant of bail and what follows on non-appearance after summons or breach of such bonds.

Analysis: A bond under Section 88 is only an undertaking to appear and is distinct from bail, which is governed by the provisions relating to release from custody. If the accused fails to appear after summons, the Court may issue a warrant to secure presence, ordinarily beginning with a bailable warrant and then proceeding to a non-bailable warrant if necessary. If the accused has furnished a bond under Section 88 and later defaults, Section 89 read with Section 70 authorises arrest and production before the Court. An application to cancel such a warrant is not an application for bail, and the conditions of Section 45(1) do not govern that situation.

Conclusion: Acceptance of bonds under Section 88 does not amount to grant of bail, and on default the Special Court may issue warrants and act under Sections 89 and 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (iv): Whether, after cognizance on a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Enforcement Directorate can still exercise power of arrest under Section 19 against an accused named in the complaint, and when custody may be sought for further investigation.

Analysis: Once cognizance is taken on the complaint and the accused is before the Special Court pursuant to summons, the matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and the Enforcement Directorate cannot exercise arrest power under Section 19 against that accused in relation to the same complaint. If the prosecution requires custody for further investigation in the same offence, it must move the Special Court and seek custody with brief reasons, after hearing the accused. The Court may permit custody only if custodial interrogation is shown to be necessary.

Conclusion: After cognizance on the complaint, the Enforcement Directorate cannot arrest the accused named in that complaint under Section 19, though it may seek custody from the Special Court for further investigation in appropriate cases.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the appellants had not been arrested during investigation, summons ought to have been the normal process, their appearance before the Special Court did not place them in custody, and the warrants issued against them were liable to be cancelled on compliance with the conditions directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, an accused not arrested during investigation and appearing pursuant to summons is not in custody, may be required to furnish a bond to secure appearance, and cannot be arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 after cognizance has been taken on that complaint.

---