PMLA- If Arrest Of Accused Isn’t Valid & Lawful As Per Section 19, An Order Of Remand Shall Fail On That Ground: Supreme Court

Case: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

Coram: Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos 3051-3052 of 2023

Court Observation: The Court seized the exercise under Section 167  CrPC of remanding the person arrested by the ED under Section 19(1) of the  Act of 2002 has a duty to verify and ensure that the conditions in Section 19  are duly satisfied and that the arrest is valid and lawful. In the event, that the  Court fails to discharge this duty in right earnest and with the proper  perspective, as pointed out hereinbefore, the order of remand would have to  fail on that ground and the same cannot, by any stretch of the imagination,  validate an unlawful arrest made under Section 19 of the Act of 2002

This Court reiterated that Section 19 of the Act of  2002, supplemented by Section 167 Cr.P.C., provided adequate safeguards to an arrested person as the Magistrate has a distinct role to play when a remand is made of an accused person to an authority under the Act of 2002. It was held that the Magistrate is under a bounden duty to see to it that Section 19 of the  Act of 2002 is duly complied with and any failure would entitle the arrestee to get released. It was pointed out that Section 167 Cr.P.C is meant to give  effect to Section 19 of the Act of 2002 and, therefore, it is for the  Magistrate to satisfy himself of its due compliance by perusing the order  passed by the authority under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 and only upon  such satisfaction, the Magistrate can consider the request for custody in favor of authority

Being a premier investigating agency, charged with the onerous responsibility of curbing the 19 debilitating economic offenses of money laundering in our country, every action of the ED in the course of such exercise is expected to be transparent, above board, and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action. The ED mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness. In the case on hand, the facts demonstrate  that the ED failed to discharge its functions and exercise its powers as per  these parameters

Previous Posts

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Display Of ‘Gross Images’ In Anti-Tobacco Ads In Cinemas, OTT Platforms

Delhi High Court Restrains Parle From Using ‘For The Bold’ Tagline As Predominant Part Of Advertising ‘B Fizz’ Drink In Suit By PepsiCo

Paddy Land Act | Authority Must Consider Feasibility Of Paddy Cultivation While Deciding Plea To Delete Property From Data Bank: Kerala High Court

Executing Court Can’t Go Behind Decree, Aggrieved Party Must Seek Amendment Of Decree In Case Of Discrepancy With Judgment: Patna High Court

Once Investigation Is Initiated By SFIO Under Companies Act, Parallel Probe By Separate Agency Not Permissible: Delhi High Court

Keywords

PMLA, PMLA- If Arrest Of Accused