TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the accused within 24 hours of his arrest. 2. The instant writ petition raises the same question of law in addition to the second question as to whether remand order is amenable to writ jurisdiction specially when statutory indictment is alleged to have been not considered by the learned Magistrate while remanding the accused in police custody or in custody of special investigating agency. 3. Now the facts. 4. In connection with ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024, dated 14th March, 2024 (Directorate of Enforcement, Patna v. Sanjeev Hans and others) an FIR No. 18 of 2023, dated 9th of January, 2023, registered in Rupaspur Police Station, Patna against the above-named Sanjeev Hans, a member of IAS; Gulab Yadav, EX MLA, RJD; and others, ED, conducted raid in the house of Uttam Daga, petitioner herein, to investigate his role in money laundering at premises CF-374 Salt Lake City, Sector-1, Kolkata-700064 on 25th of January, 2025. The officers of DOE conducted search in the house and others places, owned and possessed by the petitioner and during search they had reason to believe on the basis of the materials collected by them that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of committing offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to judicial custody and for consequentially setting aside the same, as an illegal detention violative of Articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 187 of the B.N.S.S. (pari materia to Section 167 Cr.P.C.) cannot be validated by an order of judicial remand. c) For directing the Petitioner to be released forthwith in connection with ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "ECIR") pending before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (PMLA) Patna. d) For an ad-interim direction for releasing the Petitioner connection with ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "ECIR") pending before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (PMLA) Patna during the pendency of the instant writ application. e) For any other relief(s) to which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case." 9. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, refers to Article 22 of the Constitution of India for the sake of proper adjudication of the case. It is important to reproduce Article 22 of the Constitution of India hereinb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... detained for a period longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) (b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and (c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4)." 10. Referring to the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 22, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that the requirement of Article 22 (2) that the person arrested must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a particular time is definitely not tethered to the test of territoriality with reference to the place of commission of offence or the place were the connected criminal case might have been registered. The mandate of the Constitution is that the person arrested and detained in custody in connection with any offence or criminal case that might have been committed or registered even elsewhere will have to produced before the nearest Magistrate i.e., the Magistrate nearest to the place of arrest and det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cing him before a nearest Judicial Magistrate, having territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 12. It is also contended by Mr. Singh that Section 187 of the BNSS also contemplates and requires production of the arrested person (whether arrested with warrant or without warrant) before the nearest Judicial Magistrate and empowers such Judicial Magistrate, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case to authorize the detention of the accused in proper custody for a trial not exceeding 15 days in the whole, and if such Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, he may order the accused to be forwarded before a Magistrate having such jurisdiction. This provision, according to Mr. Singh, clearly shows that the nearest Magistrate before whom an arrested person has to be produced in compliance with the mandate of Article 22 (2) as well as of the requirement of Section 187 need not necessarily be the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial. In other words, he tried to impress upon this Court that it is the incumbent duty of the Arresting Officer/Agency to produce an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate. Even if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate. 15. In other words, Mr. Singh submits that term "nearest Magistrate" cannot be supplemented by a term "jurisdictional Magistrate". 16. On the issue of interpretation of the provision contained in Article 22 (2), Section 187 of the BNSS, Section 58 of the BNSS and other provisions relating to production of accused after arrest within 24 hours, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner first refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye and Others, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 292. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is referred to by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner with great stress and the same is quoted below:- "10. Article 22 (1) embodies a rule which has always been regarded as vital and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal systems where the rule of law prevails. For example, the 6th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America contains similar provisions and so does article 34 of the Japanese Constitution of 1946. In England whenever an arrest is made without a warrant, the arrested person has a right to be informed not only that he is being arrested but also of the reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing is permitted to be made to extend the scope of Article 22 (2). 19. Mr. Singh next refers to a Constitution Bench decision in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398. This decision deals with the scope of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which states that no person in the service under the Union and the States shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank, except after an inquiry, in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. In other words, without departmental inquiry by formulation of articles of charge and giving opportunity to the delinquent employee of being heard, he shall not be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. While interpreting Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 70 as hereunder: "70. The position which emerges from the above discussion is that the keywords of the second proviso govern each and every clause of that proviso and leave no scope for any kind of opportunity to be given to a government servant. The phrase "this clause shall not apply" is mandatory and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exclusion of all other candidates in the constituency, be allotted the symbol reserved earlier for that party when it was a recognised national or State party, notwithstanding that such symbol is not specified in the list of free symbols for such State or Union Territory, on the fulfilment of each of the following conditions " 23. While interpreting Para 10 A of the said order in the light of the other provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:- "28. This Court in Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court [(1985) 3 SCC 103 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 594] observed in para 15 as under: (SCC p. 112) "15. No canon of statutory construction is more firmly established than that the statute must be read as a whole. This is a general rule of construction applicable to all statutes alike which is spoken of as construction ex visceribus actus. This rule of statutory construction is so firmly established that it is variously styled as 'elementary rule' (see Attorney General v. Bastow [(1957) 1 QB 514 : (1957) 2 WLR 340 : (1957) 1 All ER 497] ) and as a 'settled rule' (see Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras [(1953) 1 SCC 492 : AIR 1953 SC 274 : 1953 SCR 677]). The only recogn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould recognise a third category i.e. a party which was once a recognised party but has lost its status as such so that it retains its old symbol for ever and can rightfully claim it. That para makes it mandatory that a candidate set up by a national party shall chose the symbol reserved for that party and no other symbol. So also a candidate set up by the State party shall chose and shall be allotted only the symbol allotted to that party and no other symbol. Para 8(3) provides that a reserved symbol shall not be chosen by or allotted to any candidate other than a candidate set up by the national party or a State party for whom such symbol has been reserved. The provision is extremely clear. Dr. Swamy, however, wanted us to create a third category as has been stated earlier. That is not possible. If the arguments were to be accepted, then we would have to read something which is not there in the provisions and this includes Paras 5, 6 and 8 as also the impugned Para 10-A. Such an exercise would amount to this Court treading dangerous path of legislature. We do not think that such a course is possible. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept that argument." 24. Mr. Singh, learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 577 he also observed: This is not a new problem, though our standard of drafting is such that it rarely emerges" 26. Referring to the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in 2000 6 SCC 359, Mr. Singh has advanced the argument on the doctrine of merger. This Court, however does not find any scope to apply common law of doctrine of merger while disposing of the issues in the instant case. Therefore, this Court refrains from dealing with the submission made by Mr. Singh in this regard. 27. Similar principle, laid down in the decision of Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. Board of Directors, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 573, is also not applicable in the instant case. 28. Mr. Singh next refers to the decision rendered in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is permissible to grant extra territorial transit or interim anticipatory bail for an offence committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Sessions. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria (supra) that if a person commits an offence in one State and the FIR is lodged within t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or such other custody as he may think fit. It is, no doubt, open to a Magistrate to refuse police custody completely during the first 15 days. He may give police custody during the first 15 days not in one go but in instalments. It is also open to the Magistrate to release the arrested person on bail." 31. Paragraph 147 of the aforesaid decision states as follows: - "147. The scheme of the law (CrPC) is that when a person is arrested without warrant in connection with a cognizable offence, investigation is expected to be completed within 24 hours from his arrest. If the investigation is not completed, as is ordinarily the case, the accused must be produced before the Magistrate who is nearest from the place of arrest irrespective of whether he is having jurisdiction or not. The Magistrate on the basis of the entries in the case diary maintained by the officer is expected to apply his mind and decide whether the accused is to be remanded or not. If the police makes a request for police custody which is accepted then an order is to be passed and reasons are to be recorded under Section 167 (3). Police custody is an important tool in appropriate cases to carry on an effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. 35. This issue is also not relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant writ petition. 36. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that the term "nearest Magistrate" used in Article 22 (2) and various provisions of the BNSS stated hereinabove ought to be interpreted while bearing in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would aid the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. A construction which would defeat or was likely to defeat the purpose of the Act has to be ignored and not accepted. 37. In support of his contention, he refers to the case of National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. v. Kripal Singh, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 189. 38. The learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner next refers to the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. 39. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), the only issue for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the arrest of the appellant under Section 19 of the PMLA was v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, he may enter any place- (i) within the limits of the area assigned to him; or (ii) in respect of which he is authorised for the purposes of this section by such other authority, who is assigned the area within which such place is situated, at which any act constituting the commission of such offence is carried on, and may require any proprietor, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in, such act so as to,- (i) afford him the necessary facility to inspect such records as he may require and which may be available at such place; (ii) afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the proceeds of crime or any transaction related to proceeds of crime which may be found therein; and (iii) furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceedings under this Act. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, a place, where an act which constitutes the commission of the offence is carried on, shall also include any other place, whether any activity is carried on therein or not, in which the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracts or copies therefrom; (e) make a note or an inventory of such record or property; (f) examine on oath any person, who is found to be in possession or control of any record or property, in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation under this Act: [(1A) Where it is not practicable to seize such record or property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1), may make an order to freeze such property whereupon the property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned: Provided that if, at any time before its confiscation under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section 60, it becomes practical to seize a frozen property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1) may seize such property.] (2) The authority, who has been authorised under sub-section (1) shall, immediately after search and seizure 3 [or upon issuance of a freezing order], forward a copy of the reasons so recorded along with material in his possession, ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the 2 [Special Court or] Magistrate's Court." 45. Referring to these provisions, it is submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Unlike BNSS, an accused cannot be arrested only on credible suspicion about his involvement in a cognizable offence. Section 19 creates a mandatory obligation upon the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by General or Special order to arrest a person who has on the basis of material in his possession, "reason to believe" (the reason for such believe to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act. It is also the bounden duty of the concerned officer to inform him of the grounds of such arrest. So there are two preconditions contained in Section 19 before arresting a person. The Authorized officer on the basis of the material in his possession must have the reason to believe that the person has been guilty of an offense punishable under this act. Secondly, such reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffence, by forming a reason to believe that the accused is guilty of committing an offence under the PMLA. 51. To conclude, Learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, also refers to the decision of the Directorate of Enforcement v. Subham Sharma, reported in 2025 H.C.C. Online H.C.240, which held that non-production of the respondent/accused before the nearest Learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 11 a.m. on 5th of March, 2022, violates Clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the continuation of the petitioner in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under Clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India. Even this fundamental right to liberty, guaranteed under Article 21, has been violated. 52. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, the learned Special Public Prosecution on behalf of the DOE, first refers to the relevant portion of the constitutional debate with regard to introduction of Articl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by a constitutional provision, it would enable a police officer to keep a man in custody for a longer period on the ground that a particular magistrate to whom he wanted to take the accused or the magistrate who would be ultimately entitled to try the accused was living at a distance far away and therefore he had a justifiable ground for detaining him for the longer period. So, according to the father of the Constitution "nearest Magistrate" is the best provision in the interest of the liberty of the accused. 54. It is urged by Mr. Hossain that it is now a trite law that nearest Magistrate may be a Magistrate without having jurisdiction to try the case but the constitutional requirement is to produce the accused before a Magistrate either nearest to his place of arrest or if possible before the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the accused. The dispute is not on the terms of "nearest Magistrate" and the "Jurisdictional Magistrate". The fundamental and statutory right of an accused rest on his right to be produced within 24 hours. If any other meaning is tried to be introduced by judicial pronouncements, this will make the obligation of the arresting agen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. (v) (a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word "and" preceding the expression projecting or claiming as "or"; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise. (b) Independent of the above, we are clearly of the view that the expression "and" occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as "or", to give full play to the said provision so as to include "every" process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity. (c) The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. (xi) Section 24 of the 2002 Act has reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. (xii) (a) The proviso in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the 2002 Act is to be regarded as directory in nature and this provision is also read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to-case basis. (b) We do not find merit in the challenge to Section 44 being arbitrary or unconstitutional. However, the eventualities referred to in this section shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and by the Authority concerned in accordance with the interpretation given in this judgment. (xiii) (a) The reasons which weighed with this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah706 for declaring the twin conditions in Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood at the relevant time, as unconstitutional in no way obliterated the provision from the statute book; and it was o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the way of the Authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating "civil action" of "provisional attachment" of property being proceeds of crime. (b) Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest. (c) However, when the arrested person is produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to look into the relevant records presented by the authorised representative of ED for answering the issue of need for his/her continued detention in connection with the offence of money-laundering. (xix) Even when ED manual is not to be published being an internal departmental document issued for the guidance of the Authorities (ED officials), the department ought to explore the desirability of placing information on its website which may broadly outline the scope of the authority of the functionaries under the Act and measures to be adopted by them as also the options/remedies available to the person concerned before the Authority and before the Special Court. (xx) The petitioners are justi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court where a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court. 62. It is contended by Mr. Hossain, placing reliance on Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 109 and Subhash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement, (MCRC No. 5288 of 2022) as well as an unreported decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1136 of 2023) that violation of Article 22 (2) renders arrest of an accused under PMLA completely illegal for his non-production before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours and there is no inconsistency between the provision of PMLA and Section 57, now 58 of the BNSS in this regard. Thus, by virtue of Section 67 of the PMLA, Section 58 of the BNSS applies to the proceedings under the PMLA. A conjoint reading of the above-stated provisions of PMLA, Cr.P.C. and BNSS mandates DOE to produce an accused before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. 63. It is further argued by Mr. Hossain that the nearest Magistrate may be a Magistrate having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne Del 11713 and an unreported decision in the case of Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement, delivered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 15417 of 2023. 70. Mr. Hossain also refers to various other decisions to substantiate the instant point, this Court thinks that reference of the decisions would be sufficient for the purpose of our case without detailing out the observations made therein, in view of the fact that the ratio has conclusively been decided in paragraph 102 of Gautam Navlakha (supra). The case cited by Mr. Hossain are : - (i) Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31. (ii) State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder & Ors., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 74 (iii) Fertico Marketing And Investment Private Limited & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 525 71. Mr. Hossain also makes an elaborate argument on Section 19 of the PMLA with reference to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), Senthil Balaji (supra) and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions Rs. 30 Lakhs on 27.01.2024 M/s Mining & Engineering Corp Rs. 30 Lakhs on 27.01.2024 M/s Jagannath Financial (An entity owned by Uttam Daga) Rs. 30 Lakhs on 27.01.2024 M/s Prerna Smart Solutions An amount of Rs. 55 lakhs were transferred in a circuitous manner from M/s Prerna Smart Solutions Private Limited (Accused No. 6) to M/s Mining and Engineering Corporation (Accused No. 16) and a related entity, with the intent to layer and conceal the proceeds of crime, thereby projecting it as untainted. M/s Prerna Smart Solutions Rs. 55 Lakhs on 23.02.2024 M/s Mining & Engineering Corp Rs. 55 Lakhs on 23.02.2024 M/s Jagannath Financial (An entity owned by Uttam Daga) Rs. 55 Lakhs on 23.02.2024 M/s Prerna Smart Solutions An amount of Rs. 95 lakhs were transferred in a circuitous manner from M/s Prerna Smart Solutions Private Limited (Accused No. 6) to M/s Mining and Engineering Corporation (Accused No. 16) and a related entity. Ultimately Rs. 47.5 lakhs each were received by Pushpraj Bajaj (Accused No. 5) and Sunita Bajaj, with the intent to layer and conceal the proceeds of crime, thereby projecting it as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground of arrest to the accused and entire fact was elaborately stated in the remand order for consideration of the learned CJM, Patna. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the application filed by the ED and the documents regarding "reasons to believe" "grounds of arrest" etc. 81. Therefore, failure on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to state the magic word "reasons to believe" contemplated in Section 19 (1) of the PMLA ought to be considered as an inadvertent omission and not an error which touches the root of the case. 82. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that against the order of remand, efficacious remedy of the petitioner lies in approaching the learned Special Court or the High Court with prayer for bail. The Writ Court has no authority to quash a judicial order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when efficacious remedy is available otherwise. 83. Law on this point is no longer res integra. An order, rejecting a bail application, can be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following grounds: - (i) When it vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018, decided on 27th of February, 2025. It is laid down in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the said decision: - "9. However, when the legality of such an arrest made under the Special Acts like PMLA, UAPA, Foreign Exchange, Customs Act, GST Acts, etc. is challenged, the Court should be extremely loath in exercising its power of judicial review. In such cases, the exercise of the power should be confined only to see whether the statutory and constitutional safeguards are properly complied with or not, namely to ascertain whether the officer was an authorized officer under the Act, whether the reason to believe that the person was guilty of the offence under the Act, was based on the "material" in possession of the authorized officer or not, and whether the arrestee was informed about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest was made. Sufficiency or adequacy of material on the basis of which the belief is formed by the officer, or the correctness of the facts on the basis of which such belief is formed to arrest the person, could not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g his seat within the territorial jurisdiction of the place of arrest or the term encompasses the authority of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. Requirement of production of the accused before the nearest Magistrate in the locality where his arrest comes into play when a person who after arrest is required to be produced before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate is detained in a place which is far away from that jurisdiction and therefore cannot be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours as mandated both by Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and by Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 58 of the BNSS. In such circumstances, he will be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate together with a copy of the entries in the diary. Therefore, even before a Magistrate before whom a transit remand application is filed, the mandatory requirement of Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C., now Section 187 of BNSS, is that a copy of the entries in the case diary should also be produced. It is on the basis of the entries in the case diary, under Section 167 (2), such "nearest Judicial Magistrate" while passing an order authorizing detention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the provisions contained in Section 58 of the BNSS and submits that Article 22 (2) of the Constitution read with Section 58 of the BNSS was violated by the DOE in the instant case. 94. A conjoint reading of both the above provisions show that in terms of Article 22 of the Constitution itself, after excluding the time taken in the journey, a person arrested in Raipur by the CBI, pursuant to a case registered in Delhi, has to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. It is only if the journey is likely to take more than 24 hours that the person arrested has to be produced before a local Magistrate and a transit remand is obtained. In Article 22 (2) of the Constitution, in computing the period of 24 hours, the travel time for the arrested persons to be produced before the jurisdictional Court is to be excluded. If the arrested person cannot be produced before 24 hours, then he has to be produced before the nearest Magistrate. 95. In the instant case, the accused was produced within 24 hours of his arrest. Therefore, the requirement of his production before the nearest Magistrate of the place of arrest was not mandatory. 96. Mr. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate appearing....