PMLA arrest safeguards upheld: recorded reasons, communicated grounds, and valid Magistrate custody authorisation sustained.

Judicial review of an arrest under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act is confined to checking compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards: whether the officer was duly authorised, whether recorded reasons to believe existed on relevant material, and whether the grounds of arrest were communicated. On the material before it, the arresting officer had recorded reasons, relied on predicate-offence and money-laundering material, and supplied the arrest memo and grounds of arrest, so the arrest was not vitiated. The remand order was therefore not invalid on that basis. The Judicial Magistrate at Shimla was also found to have territorial jurisdiction to receive the arrestee and authorise custody in the absence of the Special Court during vacation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arrest of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, and the subsequent remand, were vitiated for want of compliance with the statutory safeguards and whether the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to authorise custody.

Analysis: The Court held that judicial review in matters of arrest under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act is limited to verifying compliance with the statutory and constitutional safeguards, namely, whether the officer was duly authorised, whether the arrest was founded on material giving rise to recorded reasons to believe, and whether the grounds of arrest were informed. On the material placed, the arresting officer had recorded reasons in writing, referred to the relevant material relating to the predicate offence and money-laundering allegations, and supplied the arrest memo and grounds of arrest. The Court further held that once the arrest was not shown to be illegal under Section 19, the remand order could not be faulted on that ground. On jurisdiction, the Court found that in the absence of the Special Court during vacation, the Judicial Magistrate at Shimla had territorial jurisdiction to receive the arrestee and authorise custody in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act.

Conclusion: The arrest and remand were held to be valid, and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge to arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the Court may examine only whether the statutory preconditions and constitutional safeguards were complied with; it will not undertake a merits review of the sufficiency of the material, and a lawful arrest cannot be invalidated merely because the arrestee was later remanded by a competent Magistrate.

---