Person in judicial custody can be formally arrested for new case investigation under PMLA Section 19(3)

The Madras HC dismissed a challenge to an arrest order alleging violation of Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court held that PMLA, being a special enactment, prevails over general law and that respondents properly followed PMLA procedures. The court ruled that a person already in judicial custody for another case can be formally arrested for investigation of a subsequent case, finding Section 19(3) requirements were complied with and no violation occurred.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in relation to arrest order dated 26.06.2024.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an arrest order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Assistant Director in the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner sought to quash the arrest order, alleging non-compliance with Section 19(3) of the PMLA. The petitioner argued that the arrest was made without following the mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the arrest order was in violation of Section 19(3) of the PMLA, which requires a person arrested under the Act to be produced before a Special Court or Magistrate within twenty-four hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey. The petitioner was not produced within 24 hours before the Special Court, rendering the arrest order null and void according to the petitioner.

In response, the Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent argued that the arrest was made in accordance with Section 19(1) of the PMLA, as the petitioner was found guilty of an offense punishable under the Act. The respondent maintained that the petitioner was formally arrested on 26.06.2024 and was lodged in jail No.4, Tihar Jail, Delhi on the date of the arrest order.

The judgment referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of V.Senthil Balaji Vs. State regarding the interplay between Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized the importance of complying with the safeguards provided under Section 19 of the PMLA and the role of the Magistrate in ensuring such compliance.

The court also cited the provisions of Section 65 of the PMLA, which states that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to proceedings under the Act. The court held that the arrest and subsequent procedures followed by the Enforcement Directorate were in accordance with the provisions of the PMLA, and there was no infirmity in the arrest.

Furthermore, the judgment referenced a previous decision of the Madras High Court regarding the arrest of an accused already in judicial custody in connection with another case. The court clarified that if a person is already in judicial custody, they can be formally arrested in connection with a subsequent case without violating Section 19(3) of the PMLA.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the criminal original petition, finding it devoid of merits and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal provisions invoked, and the court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---