Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a June 2023 PMLA arrest where the arrestee had read and signed the written grounds but was not given a copy to retain. It treated the requirement in Pankaj Bansal to furnish written grounds as prospective and held that the earlier arrest complied with Section 19 and Article 22(1).
Issues
- Whether failure to furnish a retained copy of the grounds invalidated an arrest preceding Pankaj Bansal.
- How the time requirement for communicating grounds under Section 19 should be understood.
Provisions considered
- Section 19, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The Court construed the duty to inform the arrestee of the grounds, the timing of written communication, and the safeguards of forwarding material and production before court. The undisputed communication in this pre-Pankaj Bansal arrest satisfied the provision. (¶¶ 7, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Article 22(1), Constitution of IndiaFollowing the larger Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the Court held that the communication established in this case met the constitutional protection against uninformed arrest. (¶¶ 11, 17, 22, 23, 24)
Held
- The larger-Bench ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary remained binding. Statements by a smaller Bench could not depart from it; consistency and the hierarchy of precedents govern resolution of such questions. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Court interpreted “as soon as may be” as requiring communication as early as possible without avoidable delay. It held that oral information at arrest followed by written communication within the reasonably requisite period of twenty-four hours satisfied Section 19 and Article 22(1). (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The direction in Pankaj Bansal to furnish written grounds “henceforth” operated from its pronouncement. Failure to furnish a copy before that decision did not by itself invalidate an arrest where grounds had been communicated. (¶ 23)
- The appellant did not dispute reading the grounds or endorsing and signing the document. His objection was confined to not receiving a copy. In this arrest preceding Pankaj Bansal, those admitted facts established compliance. (¶¶ 5, 6, 24)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The challenge to the arrest and remand failed, and the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition stood.