AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oate and inconclusive as extraneous material has been taken into consideration and the relevant has been eschewed. iv. Alleged non-cooperation could not be the basis of arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA which contemplates arrest only if the arresting officer is in possession of the "material" on the basis of which he may "record reasons in writing" that the person to be arrested is guilty of an offence. v. It is not clear when, what and how material in possession was sent to the Adjudicating Authority in compliance with Section 19(2). 2. Seeking release of the petitioner forthwith, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted has hereunder:- FIR No. 60 dated June 17, 2024 was registered at Cyber P.S., Kolkata, under Section 66C/66D of the I.T. Act read with Sections 120B/170/384/419/420/465/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and eight accused persons were arrested. The FIR relates to an alleged financial fraud of Rs. 47,00,000/-. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor has any nexus with the accused persons arrested. The petitioner was arrested on February 23, 2025. The FIR was treated as a predicate offence and ECIR KLZO-I/06/2025 was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 81; 2. Radhika Agarwal v/s. Union of India and Others reported in 2025 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 449; 3. K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Another v/s. Union of India reported in (1992) 3 Supreme Court Cases 178; 4. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others v/s. Union of India & Others reported in 2022 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 929; 5. V. Senthil Balaji v/s. State reported in 2023 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 934; 6. Pankaj Bansal v/s. Union of India & Others reported in 2023 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 1244; 7. Ram Kishor Arora v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2023 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 1682; 8. Prabhir Purkayastha v/s. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 Supreme Court Cases 254; 9. Arvind Kejriwal v/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases OnLine SC 1703; 10. Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu v/s. Union of India and Another in CRM-M-2191-2024 (O&M); 11. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v/s. Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu in SLP (CRL) 4044/2024; 12. Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbers of vague bank accounts by him in connivance with other accomplices. The petitioner was found to be in possession of various pan cards, debit/credit cards of different banks. Investigation revealed non-existence of several account holders and various bank accounts were found in the names of several firms/companies where employees of the petitioner/ his accomplices were found to be proprietors/partners/directors. The said bank accounts were used in transferring amounts involved in at least 100 numbers of complaints pertaining to digital arrest/cyber fraud throughout the country and the total transaction amount is more than Rs. 1271 crores. Observation and finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the order dated February 25, 2025 in WP (CRL) 673 of 2025 was also duly considered by the arresting officer. 8. The petitioner was arrested on April 4, 2025 and the relevant documents made over to him in the evening on the same day. Since working hours were over by that time and April 5, 2025 and April 6, 2025 were holidays, the material was sent to the Adjudicating Authority on April 7, 2025 in compliance with Section 19(2) of the Act. The provisions of Section 19 of the Act ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be prescribed." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the authorities in Arvind Kejriwal (supra), Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayshtha (supra) and Vijay Madanlal Choudhury (supra) has dealt with power of arrest granted to the E.D. vis-a-vis compliance of Section 19 of the Act. The three conditions which are required to be fulfilled prior to arrest of a person under the PMLA are as follows:- i. The officer must have material in his possession; ii. On the basis of such material, the authorised officer should form and record in writing, "reasons to believe" that a person to be arrested is guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA; iii. The person arrested, as soon as may be, must be informed of the grounds of arrest. 13. The accused cannot be arrested on the anvil of investigation borrowed from the predicate offence. Independent investigation leading to prima facie satisfaction of the three cardinal points is mandatory. [KTMS Mohd. and Another (supra)]. It is trite law that guilt can be established only on admissible evidence to be led before the Court and cannot be based on inadmissible evidence. Power to arrest under Section 19(1) of the Act is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lieve 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 a matter of judicial review. 88. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the power of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction or opinion of the statutory authority would have different facets depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The criteria or parameters of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction applicable in service related cases, cannot be made applicable to the cases of arrest made under the Special Acts. The scrutiny on the subjective opinion or satisfaction of the authorized officer to arrest the person could not be a matter of judicial review, in as much as when the arrest is made by the authorized officer on he having been satisfied about the alleged commission of the offences under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was conducted by the E.D. and material was collected against the petitioner which led the authorised officer to form and record in writing "reasons to believe" that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. Subjective satisfaction of the arresting officer with regard to the material and necessity to arrest appears to be in accordance with law. The mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act has been sufficiently and adequately complied with by the arresting officer and the arrest cannot be said to be vitiated for non-compliance of the same. As stated earlier, the sufficiency or adequacy of the material collected or the correctness of the facts on the basis of which the belief is formed to arrest the petitioner cannot be a matter of scrutiny by this Court at this stage. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 19(2) of the Act has also not been complied with. Referring to the authorities in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) V. Senthil Balaji (supra), Pankaj Bansal (supra), Dilbag Singh and Director of Enforcement and Another (supra), learned counsel has stated that compliance of Section 19 including Section 19(2) is mandatory and brooks ....