TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Unit-1. 2. The criminal original petition has been instituted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the arrest order dated 26.06.2024. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Abdulkumar Rajarathinam appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned arrest order is directly in violation of Section 19 (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as PMLA). It is contended that the petitioner was formally arrested on 26.06.2024 by the Enforcement Directorate and remanded to judicial custody on 15.07.2024. Thus, the respondent has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 19 of PMLA. 3. In order to substantiate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order of arrest is null and void. 5. Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is factually incorrect. The petitioner was formally arrested on 26.06.2024. The impugned order of arrest itself would indicate that on the date of passing of the arrest order, the petitioner was lodged in jail No.4, Tihar Jail, Delhi. Since the Enforcement Directorate found him guilty of an offence punishable under the provisions of PMLA, formal arrest has been made by invoking Section19(1) of PMLA. 6. With reference to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not produced before the Special ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Judge, NDPS Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The accused has not come into the physical custody of the respondent at all, instead, he continues to be in judicial custody in connection with the case filed by the NCB, New Delhi. Therefore, it is not necessary for the production of the accused before this Court or before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of the formal arrest and it cannot be considered as a violation either u/s 19 of PMLA or u/s 167 of Cr.P.C. 7. With reference to the above factual position made available in the order passed by the Special Judge/ Principal Special Judge, Chennai, it is relevant to extract the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.Senthil Balaji Vs.S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 and therefore it is for the Magistrate to satisfy himself of its due compliance. Upon such satisfaction, he can consider the request for custody in favour of an authority, as Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002, does not speak about the authority which is to take action for non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002. A remand being made by the Magistrate upon a person being produced before him, being an independent entity, it is well open to him to invoke the said provision in a given case. To put it otherwise, the Magistrate concerned is the appropriate authority who has to be satisfied about the compliance of safeguards as mandated under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002." 8. Section 65 of PMLA s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith some other case. Therefore, without the authority of the Magistrate, it is not possible in law for the police officer to remove the accused after effecting arrest in prison either to the Jurisdictional Magistrate or to the nearest Magistrate for the purpose of remand. ............... ............... 28. A close reading of Dinesh Dalmia's case, as referred to above, would keep things beyond any shadow of doubt that unless the accused is "in the physical custody" of the police on arrest, the question of production of the accused within 24 hours from the time of such formal arrest cannot be insisted upon. To put it otherwise, if a formal arrest is effected, as held in Anupam Kulkarni's case, when the accu....