Ram Kishor Arora vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1082 – PMLA Arrests

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 – Contention that judgment in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India 2023 INSC 866 has retrospective effect rejected -The very use of the word “henceforth” implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment – Hence non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. (Para 23)

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 – The expression “as soon as may be” contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. (Para 21)

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 – The person arrested, 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 – Referred to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India. (Para 22)

Precedents– A statement of law by a Division Bench is considered binding on a Division Bench of the same or lesser number of Judges – Doctrine of binding precedents discussed. (Para 14-16)

Leave a Comment