Case Details Ram Kishor Arora vs Directorate of Enforcement

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 December 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 3865 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 743 : 2023 INSC 1082

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondent ED in handing over the document containing the grounds of the arrest to arrestee and taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature thereon, as a token of he having read the same, and in not furnishing a copy thereof to the arrestee at the time of arrest would render the arrest illegal u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Headnote

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – High Court dismissed the petition seeking declaration that the arrest of the appellant on 27.06.2023 by the respondent Directorate of Enforcement was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant u/Arts. 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Held: In the instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant was handed over the document containing grounds of arrest when he was arrested, and he also put his signature below the said grounds of arrest, after making an endorsement that he was informed and had the grounds of arrest – The appellant in the rejoinder filed by him has neither disputed the said endorsement nor his signature below the said endorsement – The only contention raised was that he was not furnished a copy of the document containing the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest – Since the appellant was indisputably informed about the grounds of arrest and he having also put his signature and the endorsement on the said document of having been informed, there was due compliance of the provisions contained in Section

19 of PMLA and his arrest could neither be said to be violative of the said provision nor of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India. [Para 24] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 19 – Informing and furnishing of grounds of arrest:

Held: In opinion of this Court the person asserted, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. [Para 22]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 1244 – The judgment cannot be given retrospective effect.

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Union of India and Another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. Etc., [1989] 3 SCR 316 : (1989) 2 SCC 754; Chandra Prakash and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, [2002] 2 SCR 913 : (2002) 4 SCC 234; Abdul Jabar Butt and Another vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1957] SCR 51 : AIR 1957 SC 281 – followed.

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2408/2023, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said petition seeking declaration that the arrest of the appellant on 27.06.2023 by the respondent Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the ED) was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India,

View Subscription Plans →