TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to refer herein, which reads as under: 3. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded, on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 [Bariyatu P.S.] dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariyatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against one Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint made by one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for submission of forged papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. 4. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence/Army since independence. Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2023 only. For ready reference, the order dated 04.10.2024 is quoted as under: "The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the instant writ petition has been assigned to the D.B.-II by the administrative order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, therefore, this matter has been listed today before this Court. 2. The writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a) to read down and/or read into, consider, determine and expound the scope and ambit of Section 19 and Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia, in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, reported in AIR 1951 SC 157, Harkishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 and Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury vs Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 929 and declare that :- (i) Power to arrest prescribed in Section 19 of the PMLA cannot be exercised without issuing summon under Section 50 PMLA save in case of arrest effected in course of search and seizure under Section 17 and search of persons under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. 5. However, in course of argument, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he is confining the prayer with respect to order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR 01/2023 only. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel representing the respondent Enforcement Directorate prays for 4 weeks' time to seek instruction and file affidavit in the matter since in the intervening period two consecutive holidays are falling. 7. As such, with consent of both the parties, list this case on 11^th November 2024." [Emphasis supplied] 11. However, on subsequent date, the argument has been advanced by Ms. Meenakashi Arora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, questioning the order of arrest dated 07.06.2023 as also the order dated 09.06.2023, which as per learned senior counsel is the order of remand. 12. The ground has been taken on behalf of petitioner by challenging the issue of remand that at the time of arrest the condition stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has not been followed. Further, the ground of arrest has not been provided, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the reason for arrest or remand has not been communicated rather the reason for arrest has been communicated along with the exhaustive grounds, the day when the petitioner was arrested, which would be evident from Annexure R-3 appended with the counter affidavit, wherein the entire details has been furnished regarding the culpability said to be the reason to believe for arrest of the writ petitioner. 17. It has been submitted that in the said communication the writ petitioner has put his signature in each page with date and on the last page, he has noted that 'read and understand' 'I have read my ground of arrest completely and also communicated to Mr. Dilip Ghosh." and below therein has put his signature with date i.e., 07.06.2023. In view thereof, submission has been made that the petitioner has been communicated with the reason of arrest, the day when he was taken into custody i.e., on 07.06.2023. Hence, the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has fully been complied with. 18. The argument has been advanced that the arrest of the writ petitioner, therefore, is in consonance with the interpretation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Cho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arrest on the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 and its appreciation by the Court. 22. The parties have appeared on the aforesaid date. The aforesaid fact of confinement of the prayer has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, rather, it has fairly been submitted that argument has been advanced without taking note of the order dated 4th October, 2024 by which the writ petition has been confined only to the legality of order dated 09.06.2023, which is stated to be the remand order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, sought for two weeks' time to file affidavit on the issue and argue the matter further. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED has also submitted that in the counter affidavit the fact about order dated 4th October, 2024 has not been taken care of and, as such, he also wants to file affidavit as was required to be filed in pursuance to order dated 4th October, 2024. 24. For ready reference, order dated 28.01.2025 is quoted as under: "The matter was heard by this Court on 5th December, 2024. After the hearing having been concluded, the order was reser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is required by the authorised person issuing the Summons; (iii) Summons issued under Section 50 (2) PMLA must record the reasons why the authorised person considers necessary the attendance of the person to whom Summons are issued. (b) holding and declaring, with all consequences, the detention/arrest of the petitioner since 7.6.2023 and remanded since 9.6.2023 (vide Annexure-4) in ECIR Case No.01/2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022] as void-ab-initio, illegal and unconstitutional as being in gross violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India; (c) quashing/setting aside of, with all consequences, the remand order dated 9.6.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Court of Sri Dinesh Rai, Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR Case No.01/2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022]; (d) directing for immediate release of the petitioner from custody in ECIR Case No. 01/2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022]; presently pending learned Court of Sri Yogesh Kumar, Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PML....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would appear from the order dated 4th October, 2024, then the question which requires consideration is that what will happen to the confinement of prayer as has been recorded in the order dated 4th October, 2024. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that further hearing is required. As such, the case has been listed today under the heading "Orders". The aforesaid fact of confinement of prayer has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, rather, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the argument has been advanced without taking care of the order dated 4th October, 2024 by which the prayer of the writ petition has been confined only to the legality of order of remand dated 09.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has sought for two weeks' time to file affidavit on the issue and to argue the matter further. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, has also submitted that in the counter affidavit the fact about order dated 4th October, 2024 has not been taken care of and, as such, he also wants to file affidavit as was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the hearing on subsequent dates proceeded, with the appellant's counsel addressing the Court on other issues as well, beyond the limited scope of the earlier submission. Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide the impugned order dated 28.01.2025, held that the matter would be proceeded with afresh. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the arguments have been heard on all issues, notwithstanding the earlier submission made restricting the arguments to the order of remand alone. Therefore, there is no requirement for a fresh hearing. A request has also been made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that it would be appropriate that the same Bench of the High Court, may rehear the matter. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the findings in the impugned order, were necessitated on account of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court and, therefore, it is the appellant who has brought about the said situation. In any case, it is for the High Court to take a further call on the matter. 7. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, we request the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been relied upon. 33. On the factual aspect, submission has been made that there is no document/material available on record to implicate the petitioner for forging and manipulating the title deeds being Deed of Sale No. 4369 dated 11.10.1932 of the property in question in the office of Registrar of Assurances at Kolkata. Further, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was involved in obtaining holding numbers by accused Pradeep Bagchi by submitting the forged documents. Furthermore, there is no material available on record to show, even remotely, that any proceeds of crime have been generated by the petitioner. It has been submitted that even if all the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the prosecution complaint are accepted at its face value and in their entirety and appreciated in their proper perspective in accordance with law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court the same do not make out any case defined under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act. 34. It has been contended that since the ground of arrest has not been provided and as such the very arrest is illegal. However, learned senior counsel did not deny the fact that the pray....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....my ground of arrest completely an also communicated to Mr. Dilip Ghosh'. Further, when the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, PMLA on 08.06.2024, he did not complain regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest or about any ill-treatment against the arrest. 39. The learned Special Judge has specifically recorded in order dated 08.06.2023 that the information of arrest has been given to their family members and even at the time of passing of order learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Mr. Bidhyut Chourasia and Mr. Abhishek Agarwal were present in the Court and thereafter, the petitioner was sent to Birsa Munda Central Jail in judicial custody. 40. It has been contended that even the order of remand has not been challenged by the writ petitioner since the order dated 09.06.2023, stated to be the order of remand, cannot be said to be order of remand rather it is the order by which the police custody of the writ petitioner has been given for the purpose of interrogation. 41. It has been submitted that the actual order of remand is 08.06.2023 which was on the basis of application filed by the prosecuting agency, filed under Section 167 Cr.P.C, herein ED and ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n which requires consideration is only the propriety/impropriety of order dated 09.06.2023, stated to be order of remand by the writ petitioner. 46. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-ED has further submitted that due to inadvertence order dated 04.10.2024 could not be pointed out at the relevant stage, however, when the matter was heard on 28.01.2025, the respondent-ED has filed supplementary affidavit and brought to the notice of this Court regarding confinement of prayer in order dated 4th October, 2024. Therefore, submission has been made that the matter is to be adjudicated only on the issue of propriety/impropriety of order dated 09.06.2023, stated to be remand order by the writ petitioner. 47. Argument has been advanced that the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court that pertains to issue of arrest but herein the question which requires consideration by this Court is the propriety/impropriety of the order dated 09.06.2023. 48. So far as the fact of said Pankaj Bansal case, as relied upon the petitioner, is concerned, it is quite different since it would be evident from paragraph 21 of the judgment rende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot been supplied to the petitioner? III. Whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for showing interference in order dated 09.06.2023, which is stated to be order of remand by the petitioner? 54. This Court is framing these issues since learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has argued the matter on the prayer which has once been confined by the petitioner, and as such this Court has formulated these issues as to whether this issue can be allowed to be agitated when the prayer of the writ petition has been confined with respect to order dated 09.06.2023 only, which would be evident from order dated 4.10.2024 passed by this Court, and it needs to refer herein that order dated 4.10.2024 is still operative reason being that the same has not been questioned by filing any review/recall petition or challenging in higher forum rather the said order dated 04.10.2024 is admitted one. 55. For the sake of convenience, this Court is taking up issue no. I first and independently. 56. Originally, the writ petition was filed for the following relief(s): (a) to read down and/or read into, consider, determine and expound the scope and ambit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of order dated 09.06.2023, which is stated to be remand order, as would which is evident from order dated 04.10.2024, as quoted and referred hereinabove. However, at the cost of repetition, the relevant portion of the order dated 04.10.2024 is quoted hereunder as: However, in course of argument, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he is confining the prayer with respect to order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR 01/2023 only. 58. Admittedly, the said order i.e., order dated 04.10.2024 has never been questioned by the writ petitioner and even no application has been filed for recall/review of the said order. It is further evident that the fact about confinement of prayer has rather been admitted, as would be evident from order dated 28.01.2025 whereby and whereunder the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the issue of confinement of prayer of the writ petition, and has sought for time to file affidavit. 59. Even the writ petitioner has approached to the Hon'ble Court by filing SLP (Crl) No. 2912 of 2025 challenging order dated 28.01.2025 but in the said SLP, it is no issue having been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the confinement of prayer made by the writ petitioner. 64. In the aforesaid context this Court is of the view that it is the learned counsel of litigant who is to place the case considering the interest of the litigant based upon instruction of the litigant concerned. The Court merely because has heard the matter, the litigant concerned cannot be allowed to dictate the Court to consider contrary to the pleadings and moreover once prayer has been confined, limiting it to the issue of alleged remand dated 09.06.2023 without having order of recall/review of the order dated 04.10.2024 by which prayer has been confined, it would not be proper to delve into the confined prayer. 65. It is bounden duty of the litigant concerned in approaching the Court of law particularly exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with clean hand and to bring all the facts to the notice of the Court. It cannot be acceptable that if anything has been recorded in the order being part of the record and if the Court has heard the litigant concerned even with respect to the other issues prior to the confinement of prayer it will not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o concession was given, which would amount to a case of sitting on the fence, which should not be encouraged and if really there was no concession, the only course open to the party was to move the concerned Court and not by approaching the appellate court. 69. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law merely because the Court has heard the issue, which has been once confined and judicial order to that effect has been recorded in black and white vide order dated 04.10.2024 and even later on it is not being contradicted by the litigant concerned also and further it has never been challenged by filing review/recall petition before this Court, in such circumstance, this Court is of the view that if the Court has heard the litigant concerned on misconception having not been pointed out about order dated 04.10.2024 it does not mean that the Court will ignore the order already on record i.e., order dated 04.10.2024. Furthermore, there is no statement that any endeavor has been taken for recall/review of the said order. 70. It further needs to refer herein that it was the bounden duty of the litigant concerned either it is writ petitioner or the respondent-ED to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the order dated 09.06.2023 only. 77. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgments are with respect to the issue of arrest and at that time the requirement as stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has been held to be mandatorily complied with. But since the issue of arrest has not been intended to be challenged by confining the prayer only with respect to the order of remand said to be passed as per the petitioner on 09.06.2023, hence, there is no requirement of delving upon the said judgment with respect to its applicability in view of subsistence of order dated 04.10.2024. 78. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition since has been confined and as such it would not be proper to delve upon the issue of arrest, therefore, judgment upon which reliance has been placed is not applicable. Therefore, issue of arrest is not being dealt with herein. 79. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the issue no. I is decided against the writ petitioner taking into consideration that after confinement of prayer by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner limited to the order dated 09.06.2023, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to agi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest." 85. The issue of PML Act regarding its validity fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) wherein also the validity of Section 19 (1) has been held to be intra-virus meaning thereby whatever has been stipulated under the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002, the same has been held to be valid in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court [Larger Bench] rendered in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). 86. Further it needs to refer herein the judgment which has come in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. (supra) has been passed on 07.08.2023 wherein consideration has been given with respect to the issue of Section 19 (1) holding therein that after firming a reason to believe that the person has been found guilty of an offence punishable under PMLA, 2002 the officer concerned is at liberty to arrest him, while performing his mandatory duty of recording the reasons, and that the said exercise h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecured interim protection from the Delhi High Court in Bail Applications Nos. 2030 and 2031 of 2023 subject to conditions, till the next date of hearing i.e. 5-7-2023. In the meanwhile, on the basis of FIR No. 0006 dated 17-4-2023, ED recorded another ECIR viz. ECIR/GNZO/17/2023, on 13-6-2023 (hereinafter "the second ECIR") against accused persons. (v) However, summons were issued by ED to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal on 13-6-2023 and required their compliance with the summons on 14-6-2023 at 11 a.m. While Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal were at the office of ED at Rajokri, New Delhi, in compliance of these summons, Pankaj Bansal was served with fresh summons at 4.52 p.m. on 14-6-2023, requiring him to be present before another investigating officer at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. This summon was in connection with the second ECIR. There is lack of clarity as to when summons in relation to the second ECIR were served on Basant Bansal. According to ED, he was served the summons on 13-6-2023 itself and refused to receive the same. However, it is an admitted fact that Basant Bansal was also present at ED's office at Rajokri, New Delhi, on 14-6-2023 at 11.00 a.m. It is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but the said writ petitions came to be dismissed, vide the impugned orders of the Division Bench, thereafter SLP has been preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 88. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking note of the aforesaid facts has observed as under: 21. In terms of Section 19(3) PMLA and the law laid down in the above decisions, Section 167CrPC would necessarily have to be complied with once an arrest is made under Section 19 PMLA. The court seized of the exercise under Section 167CrPC of remanding the person arrested by ED under Section 19 (1) PMLA has a duty to verify and ensure that the conditions in Section 19 are duly satisfied and that the arrest is valid and lawful. In the event the court fails to discharge this duty in right earnest and with the proper perspective, as pointed out hereinbefore, the order of remand would have to fail on that ground and the same cannot, by any stretch of imagination, validate an unlawful arrest made under Section 19 PMLA. 23. Viewed in this context, the remand order dated 15-6-2023 passed by the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, reflects total failure on his part in discharging his duty as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 19 (1) PMLA, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorised officer." 90. Thereafter, paragraph 39 is also required to be seen wherein it has been held by taking into consideration the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002 that too give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19 (1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, it has been held that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, in consequence, their remand to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained. 46. The appeals are accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned orders [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 2045], [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 2028] passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the impugned arrest orders and arrest memos along with the orders of remand passed by the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, and all orders consequential thereto. 47. The appellants shall be released forthwith unless their incarceration is validly required in connection with any other case." 92. We are referring these judgments in order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, who has relied upon these judgments in order to consider the requirement which is to be fulfilled at the stage of Section 19 (1) of PMLA, 2002 and the remand can be said to be equal that too when the issue of arrest has been declined to be challenged by confining the prayer to challenge only the issue of remand, as would be evident from order dated 04.10.2024 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. 23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, "henceforth", meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word "henceforth" implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for the appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary "henceforth" that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Hence, non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [Pankaj Bansa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sections 153-A, 120-B of the Penal Code. 96. The appellant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 3-10-2023 vide arrest memo. Thereafter, the appellant was presented in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 4-10-2023, sometime before 6.00 a.m. which fact is manifested from the remand order and the appellant was remanded to seven days' police custody vide order dated 4-10-2023. The proceedings of remand have been seriously criticised as being manipulated by Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and aspersions of subsequent insertions in the remand order have been made. 97. The appellant promptly questioned his arrest and the police custody remand granted by the learned Remand Judge vide order dated 4-10-2023 by preferring Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7278 of 2023 in the High Court of Delhi which stands rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 13-10-2023. The said order is subjected to challenge by special leave before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 98. The Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of arrest", though a must, does not in itself satisfy the compliance requirement. The authorized officer's genuine belief and reasoning based on the evidence that establishes the arrestee's guilt is also the legal necessity. As the "reasons to believe" are accorded by the authorised officer, the onus to establish satisfaction of the said condition will be on the DoE and not on the arrestee. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) which is a decision rendered by a three Judge Bench, after formulating the questions of law, has referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: 11. Arrest under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act may occur prior to the filing of the prosecution complaint and before the Special Judge takes cognizance. Till the prosecution complaint is filed, there is no requirement to provide the accused with a copy of the ECIR. The ECIR is not a public document. Thus, to introduce checks and balances, Section 19 (1) imposes safeguards to protect the rights and liberty of the arrestee. This is in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. 100. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 has again considered the issue of Section 19 (1) of the Act 2002. The factual aspect of the case is like that between 2011 and 2016, the appellant was holding the post of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. Broadly, the allegation against the appellant is that while discharging his duties as a Minister, in connivance with his personal assistant and his brother, he collected large amounts by promising job opportunities to several persons in various positions in the Transport Department. This led to the registering of three First Information Reports against the appellant and others. The said First Information Reports are FIR no. 441 of 2015 dated 29th October 2015 (CC Nos. 22 and 24 of 2021), FIR No. 298 of 2017 registered on 9th September 2017 (CC No. 19 of 2020) and FIR no. 344 dated 13th August 2018 (CC No. 25 of 2020). 101. In the first FIR, six charge sheets have been filed. More than 2000 accused have been named in the charge sheets. 550 witnesses have been named. In the case of the second FIR, there are 14 accused named in the chargesheet. In conn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). According to the appellant's case, he was arrested on 10th June 2024 at about 10.30 a.m. at his office premises on the 3rd-5th floor of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram, Haryana. He was taken to DLF Police Station, Section 29, Gurugram. He was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate (in charge) at Gurgaon on 11th June 2024 at 3.30 p.m. 106. It had been contended that there was a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'). The allegation is that neither in the remand report nor in the order dated 11th June 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate was the time of arrest mentioned. The FIR was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent. 107. Further, in the aforesaid case a vital issue was emerged when the learned counsel appearing for the appellant produced photographs which showed that while he was admitted to the hospital, he was handcuffed and chained to the hospital bed. Therefore, a notice was issued on 4th October 2024 to the Medical Superintendent of PGIMS, call....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that the writ petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2023 where the grounds of arrest was handed over to the petitioner, upon which he put his signature. For ready reference, the 'Grounds of Arrest' dated 07.06.2023, is quoted as under: "Grounds of arrest of Amit Kumar Agarwal, S/o Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Ghosh, S/o Nitya Gopal Ghosh, under section 19 of PMLA, 2002 in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022. 1. Brief facts of the case- 1.1 An ECIR No RNZO/18/2022 was recorded on 21.10.2022 based on FIR No. 141 of 2022 dat1ed 04.06.2022, registered by the Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi under section 420, 467 and 471 of IPC against one Pradip Bagchi, Resident of ward no. 21, Lotus Garden Complex Block B, PS Bariatu, Dist. Ranchi based on a complaint of Shri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The complainant stated that the said Pradip Bagchi submitted forged papers i.e., Aadhaar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession Letter for obtaining the holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. The abovesaid holding numbers were verified by him and it was found that the Pradip Bagchi has submitted forged and fictitious documents to obtain the holding num....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6;प्त किये है। जिसकी प्राप्ति विक्रेता स्वीकार व समपुष्ट करते हैं। अब विक्रय संपत्ति के मूल्य में किसी भी प्रकार की प्राप्ति विक्रेता को खरीदार से शेष नहीं रहा ।" Thus, it is evident that the declaration of payment of full amount of Rs 7 crores by the purchaser and its receipt by the seller was deliberate, thoughtful and planned to give a legitimate appearance to the bogus transactions recorded in the sale d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nest manner in the name of Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. The property worth several crores of rupees was acquired by paying only Rs 25 lakhs commission. 2. Investigation reveals that the company M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. has no such business which can justify such huge deposits in its account. 3. Investigation has revealed that Amit Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Ghosh both are the part of conspiracy to acquire the land in possession of defence. Amit Kumar Agarwal Is the beneficial owner of the company M/s Jagatbandhu tea Estates Pvt. Ltd and he is actually involved in the activity connected with acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed property measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, Mauja Morabadi on strength of fake deed prepared by the accused persons earlier arrested by this office. Dilip Ghish assisted Amit Kumar Agarwal and both were knowingly party with accused Afshar Ali, Chaavi Ranjan and Pradeep Bagchi to acquire the above said proceeds of crime. Amit Kumar Agarwal managed the business activities of the company Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt Ltd and he acquired the land in name of this beneficially owned company by paying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the accused persons namely 1) Amit Kumar Agarwal, S/o Vijay Kumar Agarwal, R/o-HB-165, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata, PIN-700106 and 2)Dilip Ghosh, S/o Nitya Gopal Ghosh, R/o-P-162, C.I.T. Road, Scheme-VII M, Kankurgachi, Kolkata, West Bengal-700054 for the offence u/s 3 PML Act punishable u/s 4 PML Act and produced before the court today. He has filed (1) arrest memo (2) order of arrest vide case no.- ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 issued by L.O. cum Assistant Director Deovrat Jha (3) Ground of arrest (4) Medical report with COVID-ve and (5) Search Memo (u/s 51 Cr.P.C.). Para-2 to 13 of the application filed u/s 167 Cr.P.C. r/w section 65 and 19(3) of PML Act reveals that the huge amount of proceeds of crime is involved with larger conspiracy to illegally sale the Army land, area-4.55 acre by manipulation of official record and thereafter they acquiring the said land on meager price. Various incriminating documents are seized during search. It shows that accused persons are the members of a racket which involved in transfer of land illegally. Accused persons have no complaint about any ill-treatment against arrest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on behalf of LO. (ED) is hereby allowed. Let an extract copy of this order be given to Investigating Officer (ED) and Jall Superintendent, BMC, Jail Hotwar, Ranchi for information and needful. " 114. This Court has scrutinized order dated 09.06.2023 in order to consider as to whether the order dated 09.06.2023 is the actual order of remand immediately after arrest or it is different to that. 115. It needs to refer herein that this Court in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts has examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') related to remand thoroughly. Sections 167, 209 and 309 of the Code deal with the remand of an accused. The relevant clauses contained in those sections are quoted below:- Sec. 167 ........ "(2) The magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 90/60 days, as the case may be. 118. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, special investigation cell-I Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992 Cri LJ 2768) has observed that the Magistrate is competent to authorise detention of any accused in police custody for a specific period on adequate grounds only for the first fifteen days and that detention in police custody or judicial custody or vice versa can be authorised only within first fifteen days. After fifteen days' detention the accused cannot be sent to police custody at all except in other cases in which remand of first fifteen days has not yet started. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case approved the rule laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of the State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharam Pal, reported in 1982 Cri LJ 1103 that the words "from time to time" occurring in section show that several orders can be passed under Section 167 (2) and that the nature of custody can be altered from "judicial custody" to "police custody" and vice versa during the first period of 15 days mentioned in Section 167 (2) of the Code and that after fifteen days the accused could only be kept in j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2023 meaning thereby the writ petitioner is having no grievance with respect to the issue of remand dated 08.06.2023 otherwise said order would have been challenged by the writ petitioner. It means, the writ petitioner has accepted the remand order and has not challenged the order of remand rather he has chosen to prefer application under Sections 439 and 440 Cr.P.C before the Court of Sessions on merit by denying the allegation as referred in the ECIR by filing Misc. Cri. Application No. 1915 of 2023 for grant of bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2023 by learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi. 123. Submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that the ground of arrest ought to have been supplied along with the document at the time of remand and according to the petitioner the same having not been supplied hence the order of remand is illegal and as such not sustainable in the eye of law. 124. We have also referred hereinabove that the applicability of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002 is not available at the time of remand it is obvious for the reason that at the time of arrest it is the police who has to arrest and as such keepin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t whatsoever. For ready reference, the relevant portion of order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Court is quoted as under: "Accused persons have no complaint about any ill-treatment against arresting escort parties and information of arrest has been given to the their family also. Ld. Lawyers on behalf of the accused persons namely Bidhiyut Chourasia and Abhishek Agarwal were also present at the time of remand. They are taken into the judicial custody and remanded in this case and sent to B.M.C Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. O/C is directed to issue custody warrant at once." 129. Therefore, this Court is not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was having no grievance with respect to the issue of remand order dated 08.06.2023. Had the remand order dated 08.06.2023 have any infirmities, the writ petitioner would have made objection to that effect showing his dissatisfaction in the application which was filed before the Court having the jurisdiction for the purpose of remand of the present petitioner but admittedly that has not been done. 130. Further herein the writ petitioner has shown his satisfaction with respect to the issue of remand, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple of pleading along with specific prayer and in absence thereof no direction can be passed even by moulding the prayer in absence of any pleading to that effect. 138. It needs to refer herein that the writ petitioner has not chosen to challenge order of remand at its inception rather he has approached to the competent Court for the purpose of consideration of prayer for regular bail by filing application before the learned Special Judge, the same having been rejected, thereafter the bail application has been filed before this Court by filing B.A. No. 7343 of 2023, which was dismissed on 01.03.2024. After dismissal of the bail application of the petitioner, he moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Cr.) No. 6584 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn. 139. Thereafter, again the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail by filing B.A. No. 8321 of 2024, which is pending consideration before this Court. 140. However, after his prayer for bail having been rejected, in B.A. No. 7343 of 2023, he moved before this Court by filing the instant writ petition and while argument the learned confining the prayer to challenge the order dated 09.06.2023, stated to be ....