Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the appellants’ PMLA arrests and consequential remand orders, finding non-compliance with statutory safeguards and arbitrary exercise of power. It held that, henceforth, written grounds of arrest must be furnished as a matter of course. A remand order does not cure an unlawful arrest, and mere non-cooperation or failure to confess does not satisfy Section 19. Immediate release was ordered unless detention was lawfully required in another case.
Issues
- Whether the arrests and remand orders complied with Section 19 PMLA.
- Whether reading out or permitting reading of arrest grounds sufficiently communicated them.
- Whether alleged evasiveness alone justified arrest.
Provisions considered
- Section 19, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002The authorised officer must satisfy and document the statutory grounds for arrest. The Court required furnishing written grounds henceforth and held these arrests inconsistent with the provision. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 30, 32, 35)
- Articles 20(3) and 22(1), Constitution of IndiaFailure to confess is not non-cooperation, and meaningful information of arrest grounds enables legal advice and challenge to custody. Mere oral reading or temporary access was inadequate here. (¶¶ 25, 29, 32, 33, 35)
- Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The remanding court must independently verify Section 19 compliance; a mechanical remand cannot validate an unlawful arrest. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- The remanding Judge failed to ascertain and record satisfaction that the arrest safeguards had been met, relying instead on seriousness and the investigation stage. A remand order does not by itself cure an arrest that was unlawful at inception. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- On this chronology, summoning the appellants in the first ECIR, where they had interim protection, and arresting them under a newly recorded second ECIR demonstrated lack of bona fides and arbitrary exercise of power. The Court examined legality of arrest, not guilt in the alleged money-laundering offence. (¶¶ 13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 35)
- Mere non-cooperation with summons does not establish the statutory reason to believe that a person is guilty. The agency cannot demand a confession and label anything short of it evasive; unexplained allegations of evasiveness did not justify arrest here. (¶ 25)
- Henceforth, a copy of written grounds must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. This enables effective legal assistance and a bail application, and avoids disputes over oral communication. Sensitive portions may be redacted to protect the investigation; supply of the ECIR or all underlying material is not required by this holding. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- Merely reading out or allowing the appellants to read their arrest grounds was inadequate communication in this case. Their arrests, and the resulting agency and judicial custody orders, could not stand. (¶¶ 35, 36)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. High Court orders, arrest orders and memos, remand orders and consequential orders set aside. Appellants to be released forthwith unless their detention was validly required in another case.