Neeraj Singal v. Directorate of Enforcement

19. Power of Arrest - (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, has on the basis of material in his possession, rea be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any -section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within four hours, be taken to a [Special Court or] Judicial having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the l Court or] Magistrate's Court.” Adjudicating Authority was given on 12.06.2023, as is borne out from the arrest intimation letter (Annexure R- The controversy raised in the present cases revolves around the non- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to or, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, uthority, in a sealed envelope, in the section (1) shall, within [Special Court or] Judicial four hours shall exclude the

7. During pendency of the present petition, the law on the interpretation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA has evolved through various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In Supreme Court held that an authorized officer under the PMLA Act, 2002 is not duty bound to follow the rigors of Section 41A of the CrPC, in as much as, there is already an exhaustive procedure contemplated under the PMLA containing sufficient safeguards in favour of It was further held that the arrest of the arrestee is bound to be followed by an information being ‘ arrest and any non PMLA, 2002 would vitia decision in V. Senthil Balaji

8. In view of the above position, the parties made their respective submissions in respect of the Supreme Court in context of compliance of Section 19(1) of the PMLA and the applicability of the said judgment However, those issues paled into insignificance after the position was settled by the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India.[2]

9. In Pankaj Bansal arrest shall be furnished to the accused / arrested person without exception. Further, the Supreme Court observed that informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing would be necessary ‘ relevant paragraphs of the decision in

37. The second reason as to why this would be the proper to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to see legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the Court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in placed on record and we find that the same run into as m six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though the ED neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji (supra). Such a grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorized officer in terms due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable of the authorized officer. The second reason as to why this would be the proper he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to see this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji placed on record and we find that the same run into as m ier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant d out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. is fact is disputed in a given case, it may s Basant Bansal is concerned. Though the ED neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Nonrd would entail release of the arrested (supra). Such a d by the authorized officer in terms due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse The second reason as to why this would be the proper course he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek (supra) are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as ier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant d out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. xxxx

39. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the sta the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of c The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Qureshi (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Bhujbal lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitt position is that the ED's Investigating Officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to f compliance with the mandate of Article the Constitution hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. Further, as already noted proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained.” to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and m due compliance with the constitutional requirement under the Act of 2002. xxxx xxxx xxxx On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra), which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitt form of communication is not found to be adequate to f compliance with the mandate of Article Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no noted supra, the clandestine conduct of the ED in arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained.” to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and m due compliance with the constitutional requirement under On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to tutory mandate of Section 19(1) of henceforth, that a ourse and without exception. Moin Akhtar (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan (supra), which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no supra, the clandestine conduct of the ED in of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants

10. After the pronouncement of judgment in an oral mentioning by the parties, the matter was listed again and the parties were heard on the limited aspect as to whether the said decision is prospective in its application.

11. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the decision in Bansal (supra) is prospective in its application because the Supreme Court has expressly held that the obligation of furnishing the grounds of arrest shall become effective ‘ of the petitioner that the Supreme existing law that is, Section 19 of the PMLA and has not formulated any new law, therefore, the said judgment is retrospective in its application.

12. The question whether the directions passed in (supra)will apply prospectively or not, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Court held that the use of expression ‘ implied that the requirement of furn arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of pronouncement of the said judgment and accordingly, non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the said date co held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. The relevant part of the decision reads thus:

13. In Ram Kishor Arora expression ‘as soon as may be’ been specifically explained in India[4] nor the said expression has been interpreted in either Balaji (supra) or in that the interpretation of the expression ‘ significance. Referring to the judgment of a Constitution Bench in case of Abdul Jabar Butt and Another vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir ouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior necessary “henceforth” that a copy of such written grounds of Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing compliance of Section 19 of PMLA as also Article Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal (supra).” Ram Kishor Arora (supra) the Supreme Court also noted that the as soon as may be’ as occurring in Section 19 of PMLA has not cally explained in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of nor the said expression has been interpreted in either or in Pankaj Bansal (supra). Accordingly, the Court observed that the interpretation of the expression ‘as soon as may be Abdul Jabar Butt and Another vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 The very use of the word The submission of the learned Senior y of such written grounds of to be illegal nor As such, the action of informing o Article 22(1) of (supra).” (supra) the Supreme Court also noted that the as occurring in Section 19 of PMLA has not Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of nor the said expression has been interpreted in either V. Senthil Accordingly, the Court observed as may be’ assumes Abdul Jabar Butt and Another vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir[5] and a three-judge bench decision in the Court held that th 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as avoidable delay’ or ‘ period of time. The Court also observed that the ‘ ‘reasonably requisite arrest would be twenty

14. Elaborating further, the Court observed that it would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 Constitution of India, if the person arrested is informed or made aware 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. as possible without avoidable delay ‘reasonably requisite’ the arrest. The relevant part of the decision reads as under: “21. In view of the above, th 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 arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty judge bench decision in Durga Pada Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal the Court held that the expression ‘as soon as may be’ contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as – ‘as early as possible without ’ or ‘within reasonable convenient’ or ‘reasonably requisite period of time. The Court also observed that the ‘reasonably convenient reasonably requisite’ time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. Elaborating further, the Court observed that it would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i. as possible without avoidable delay’ and within ‘reasonably convenient reasonably requisite’ period of time, which would be twenty the arrest. The relevant part of the decision reads as under: In view of the above, the expression “as soon as may be” “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest Durga Pada Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal,[6] ’ contained in Section as early as possible without reasonably requisite’ reasonably convenient’ or ’ time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his Elaborating further, the Court observed that it would be sufficient of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e. ‘as early reasonably convenient’ and period of time, which would be twenty-four hours of e expression “as soon as may be” “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned court within 24 hours of the in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or four hours of the arrest.

22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article that the arrested person before being produced b Special Court within twenty remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money laundering. 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 possib requisite time of twenty sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article

15. After the pronouncement of decision in both the parties orally mentioned the present case on 19.12.2023 and requested for listing the matter to enable the parties to make their respective submissions as to the applicability of the present case. Accordingly, the matter was listed for hearing on 20.12.2023 and 21.12.2023.

16. For the sake of completeness, it may noticed stage of hearing the document ‘ground of arrest’ dairy was also shown to the Court. However, it is only on 21.12.2023 that the learned special counsel for the respondent / ED handed over the ‘ground of arrest’ to the court and a copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner’s counsel. Subsequently, the said document was filed on 22.12.2023, which now forms part of the court record. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), it has been mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced b Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money ering. Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if i.e as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” After the pronouncement of decision in Ram Kishor Arora submissions as to the applicability of the said decision to the facts of the For the sake of completeness, it may noticed that during the initial stage of hearing the document ‘ground of arrest’ forming part was also shown to the Court. However, it is only on 21.12.2023 that uently, the said document was filed on 22.12.2023, which now forms part of the court record. it has been Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced before the four hours or for that purposes of involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money- Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if le and within reasonably convenient and four hours of his arrest, that would be Ram Kishor Arora (supra) said decision to the facts of the that during the initial forming part of the case was also shown to the Court. However, it is only on 21.12.2023 that uently, the said document was filed on 22.12.2023, which

17. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of Kishor Arora (supra said case the appellant therein was undisputedly informed about the grounds of arrest and he had also put his signatures as an acknowledgement of having been informed the grounds of arrest, but in the pr petitioner has disputed the very existence of ‘ground of arrest’ and ‘arrest order’ / ‘reasons to believe’ at the time of his arrest right from the very beginning as is evident from the remand order dated 10.06.2023.

18. He submits that the supplied to the petitioner as the same finds reference in the the arrest was made during the search proceedings. There is no reference to the ‘Arrest Order’ and the ‘ground of arrest’ in the to Mr. Pahwa, had the ‘Arrest Order’ and ‘ground of arrest’ been shown or provided to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, it would have been so indicated in the Panchnama

19. He further submits that the ‘Arrest Order’ wa Bhawan, Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam Marg, New Delhi and not at the place of arrest. He submits that the very fact that the said document states that the petitioner was arrested at Pravartan Bhawan shows that the said document was not in existence at the time when the search was carried out at the residence of the petitioner. He submits that though the Arrest Order bears the signature of the petitioner as an acknowledgement of having received the Arrest Memo but there is no acknowledgement also been informed of the grounds of his arrest. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of supra). Elaborating on his argument, he submits that in the having been informed the grounds of arrest, but in the pr He submits that the ‘Arrest Memo’ is the only document which was supplied to the petitioner as the same finds reference in the the ‘Arrest Order’ and the ‘ground of arrest’ in the panchn Panchnama dated 09.06.2023. He further submits that the ‘Arrest Order’ was executed at Pravartan existence at the time when the search was carried out at the Arrest Memo but there is no acknowledgement of the petitioner that he has also been informed of the grounds of his arrest. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of Ram Elaborating on his argument, he submits that in the having been informed the grounds of arrest, but in the present case the is the only document which was supplied to the petitioner as the same finds reference in the panchnama since panchnama. According s executed at Pravartan existence at the time when the search was carried out at the of the petitioner that he has

20. He submits that even the Order’ and ‘ground of arrest as pleaded by respondent/ED

21. Referring to Rule 2(h) of the Forms and the Manner of Forwarding A copy of Order of Arrest of a person along with the material to the adjudicating authority and its period of Retention) Rules, 2005 that order means ‘Arrest Order’ and includes the ground of arrest but the same were neither ‘shown’ nor ‘supplied’ to the petitioner. He contends that the ‘ground of arrest’ have end of the hearing after about two hundred days from the date of arrest.

22. To sum up, Mr. Pahwa submits that the conjoint reading of the Arrest Memo, the Arrest Order, 10.06.2023 and 20.06.2023 and the respective order(s) passed therein by the learned Special Judge (PMLA) leads to an irresistible conclusion that the ‘ground of arrest’ and ‘Arrest Order’ were neither shown to the petitioner nor provided, therefore, the arrest o violation of Section 19 of PMLA rendering the same to be illegal.

23. Per contra, respondent/ED submits that the case of the petitioner from the very inception is that the provided with the ground of arrest. to the grounds (D) and (E) of the petition; remand application dated 10.06.2023; the remand order dated 10.06.2023 and th the petitioner seeking rectification of remand order dated 10.06.2023. He submits that even the panchanama does not record that the ‘ ground of arrest’ were printed at the residence of the petitioner as pleaded by respondent/ED in its additional affidavit dated 07.08.2023. Referring to Rule 2(h) of the Prevention of Money- Retention) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), he submits the ‘ground of arrest’ have been supplied by the respondent/ED at the fag To sum up, Mr. Pahwa submits that the conjoint reading of the Arrest Memo, the Arrest Order, Panchanama, Remand Applications dated 2023 and 20.06.2023 and the respective order(s) passed therein by the nor provided, therefore, the arrest of the petitioner on 09.06.2023 is in Per contra, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned special counsel for the inception is that the petitioner was shown the ‘ground of arrest’ but was not provided with the ground of arrest. In support of his contention, he referred 10.06.2023; the remand order dated 10.06.2023 and the application filed by does not record that the ‘Arrest ’ were printed at the residence of the petitioner in its additional affidavit dated 07.08.2023. -Laundering (The (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), he submits been supplied by the respondent/ED at the fag To sum up, Mr. Pahwa submits that the conjoint reading of the Arrest, Remand Applications dated 2023 and 20.06.2023 and the respective order(s) passed therein by the f the petitioner on 09.06.2023 is in Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned special counsel for the petitioner was shown the ‘ground of arrest’ but was not In support of his contention, he referred e application filed by

24. Inviting the attention of the Court to para 7 of the remand order dated 10.06.2023, he submits that the learned Special Judge had perused the case diary before recording his findings, therefore, the findings recorded in the said order are premised on material available in the case dairy, which includes the ‘ground of arrest’, therefore with. The relevant part of the order dated “7.I have considered the submissions advanced by both the as well as gone through the “8. ……. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused was not informed about the contrary to the records grounds of his arrest and countersigned by two independent witnesses

25. He submits that the petitioner sought rectificatio 10.06.2023 and thereby prayed “shown” but no rectification was sought of any other finding which establishes that the ‘ground of arrest’ were shown to the petitioner and he duly signed the same as a token thereof

26. Inviting the attention of the Court to the ‘ground of arrest’, Mr. Hossain, submits that the ‘ground of arrest’ clearly bear the signatures of the petitioner at two points and the petitioner has also appended a date on the same. Besides that, it also be given to his wife, which falsifies the petitioner’s contention that the grounds of arrest have not been informed to him.

27. According to Mr. Hossain, yet another aspect that is evident from the ‘ground of arrest’ is that the petitioner in his own handwriting has also put Inviting the attention of the Court to para 7 of the remand order dated ecording his findings, therefore, the findings recorded in the the ‘ground of arrest’, therefore, the said findings cannot be The relevant part of the order dated 10.06.2023 reads as under: I have considered the submissions advanced by both the as gone through the case diary produced by the ED.” The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused was not informed about the grounds of his arrest is contrary to the records. Accused has been provided with grounds of his arrest and same is duly signed by him and countersigned by two independent witnesses.” He submits that the petitioner sought rectification of the order dat and thereby prayed to replace the word “provided” with word duly signed the same as a token thereof. Inviting the attention of the Court to the ‘ground of arrest’, Mr. same. Besides that, it also bears the time when information of his arrest was of arrest have not been informed to him. According to Mr. Hossain, yet another aspect that is evident from the st’ is that the petitioner in his own handwriting has also put Inviting the attention of the Court to para 7 of the remand order dated ecording his findings, therefore, the findings recorded in the said findings cannot be faulted 10.06.2023 reads as under: I have considered the submissions advanced by both the sides ED.” The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that grounds of his arrest is provided with the same is duly signed by him and n of the order dated to replace the word “provided” with word Inviting the attention of the Court to the ‘ground of arrest’, Mr. ars the time when information of his arrest was According to Mr. Hossain, yet another aspect that is evident from the st’ is that the petitioner in his own handwriting has also put his wife’s name as the person submits that the endorsement on the ‘ground of arrest’ that the petitioner has informed about his arrest ‘physically’ taken place at the petitioner’s residence in the presence of his wife. He submits that had the arrest taken place at Pravartan Bhawan ‘telephonically’ wo submits that the ground of arrest is also signed by two independent witnesses.

28. Inviting the attention of the Court to the Arrest Memo, Mr. Hossain submits that this document is part of the petition and specifically mentions the place of arrest as W petition nor in the bail application, there is a whisper that the place of arrest is not the residence of the petitioner in Greater Kailash, Part

29. Referring to the specifically been recorded in the informed of the grounds of arrest and as a token of receiving such information, the petitioner had put his signatures and date on the Arrest Memo. He submits that no specific c panchnama or to the factual aspects recorded therein.

30. He submits that all the documents viz., arrest memo, arrest order, panchnama, grounds of arrest etc. are official documents, therefore, they carry a presumption of correctness under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act.

31. He contends that the law as regard furnishing of grounds of arrest as laid down in Pankaj Bansal as held by the Supreme Court in his wife’s name as the person who has been informed of his arrest ed about his arrest ‘physically’ to his wife, shows that the arrest had submits that had the arrest taken place at Pravartan Bhawan would have made sense instead of ‘physically’ Inviting the attention of the Court to the Arrest Memo, Mr. Hossain the place of arrest as W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-II, Delhi but neither in the petition nor in the bail application, there is a whisper that the place of arrest is not the residence of the petitioner in Greater Kailash, Part Referring to the panchnama, Mr. Hossain submits specifically been recorded in the panchnama that the petitioner was Memo. He submits that no specific challenge has been laid to the or to the factual aspects recorded therein. He submits that all the documents viz., arrest memo, arrest order, grounds of arrest etc. are official documents, therefore, they He contends that the law as regard furnishing of grounds of arrest as Pankaj Bansal (supra) has been made applicable prospectively as held by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishore Arora (supra), therefore, it has been informed of his arrest. He s wife, shows that the arrest had submits that had the arrest taken place at Pravartan Bhawan, then the word uld have made sense instead of ‘physically’. He further Inviting the attention of the Court to the Arrest Memo, Mr. Hossain II, Delhi but neither in the petition nor in the bail application, there is a whisper that the place of arrest is not the residence of the petitioner in Greater Kailash, Part-II, Delhi. Mr. Hossain submits that it has that the petitioner was hallenge has been laid to the He submits that all the documents viz., arrest memo, arrest order, grounds of arrest etc. are official documents, therefore, they He contends that the law as regard furnishing of grounds of arrest as ade applicable prospectively (supra), therefore, it was the decision of this Court in (DB)7 which was holding the field when the petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2023. He submits that in terms of communication of ‘ground of arrest’ was proper compliance of the mandate of Section 19(1) of

32. He submits tha mentioned in the remand application moved by the respondent before the learned Special Judge on 10.06.2023, therefore, the respondent had disclosed the grounds of arrest to petitioner at the earliest. Ac there was no violation of Section 19(1) of regard has been placed on the judgment of and a coordinate bench of this Court in of Enforcement.[8]

33. In rejoinder, Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit correctness of the judgment in apropos the requirement of furnishing a copy of the grounds of arrest was referred to the larger Bench of this Court, therefore, the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi

34. Inviting attention of the Court to the ‘ground of arrest’, Mr. Pah submits that it is only the last page which has been signed by the petitioner, which raises a serious doubt about the very execution of the document. According to Mr. Pahwa, the signature on the ‘ground of arrest’ is only for 72017 SCC OnLine Del 12108 8W.P. (Crl) 2048/2023 was the decision of this Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs. Union of India 09.06.2023. He submits that in terms of Moin Akhtar Qureshi of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. He submits that the contents of ‘ground of arrest’ disclosed the grounds of arrest to petitioner at the earliest. Ac there was no violation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of Moin Akhtar Qureshi and a coordinate bench of this Court in Ram Kishore Arora vs. Directorat In rejoinder, Mr. Pahwa submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixitvs.Union of India[9] had doubted the correctness of the judgment in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) requirement of furnishing a copy of the grounds of arrest was Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) was never a good law. Inviting attention of the Court to the ‘ground of arrest’, Mr. Pah

Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs. Union of India Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra), oral ’ are the same as disclosed the grounds of arrest to petitioner at the earliest. Accordingly, PMLA. Reliance in this Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) Ram Kishore Arora vs. Directorate Mr. Pahwa submits that a Division Bench of this Court in had doubted the (supra) and the issue requirement of furnishing a copy of the grounds of arrest was Inviting attention of the Court to the ‘ground of arrest’, Mr. Pahwa, the purpose of informing t of the Supreme Court passed in cannot be construed to be an acknowledgment of being informed of the ‘ground of arrest’.

35. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the learned Special Counsel for the respondent/ED and have perused the record.

36. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was not furnished/supplied a copy of the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of his arrest. As laid down by the Supreme Court in (supra) the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the accused/arrested person in writing was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of directions passed in therefore, non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioner in writing, who was arrested on 09.06.2023, could not be held illegal.

37. However, the controversy which remains unresolved is whether the grounds of arrest were shown to th question is in affirmative, whether it is sufficient compliance of the mandate of Section 19(1) of PMLA. This calls for examining the legal position prevailing prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment in (supra) apropos the manner in which the grounds of arrest were to be informed in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

38. As noted above, the contention of Mr. Hossain is that prior to the decision in Pankaj Bansal this Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi the purpose of informing the rights of the arrestee, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in State of West Bengal vs. D.K. Basu I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as, It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was not arrest. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishor Arora the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the date of directions passed in Pankaj Bansal (supra) on 3 furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioner in writing, who was arrested on 09.06.2023, could not be held illegal. However, the controversy which remains unresolved is whether the grounds of arrest were shown to the petitioner and in case the answer to the prevailing prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment in the manner in which the grounds of arrest were to be informed in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. As noted above, the contention of Mr. Hossain is that prior to the Pankaj Bansal (supra), it was the decision of Di Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra), which was holding the field. he rights of the arrestee, in terms of the judgment State of West Bengal vs. D.K. Basu,10 and the petitioner, as well as, It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was not Ram Kishor Arora the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the 3rd October, 2023, furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioner in writing, However, the controversy which remains unresolved is whether the e petitioner and in case the answer to the prevailing prior to the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal the manner in which the grounds of arrest were to be As noted above, the contention of Mr. Hossain is that prior to the ), it was the decision of Division Bench ), which was holding the field. On the other hand, Mr. Pahwa contends that the correctness of the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi Bench of this Court in law that was prevailing at the time of petitioner’s arrest was the law laid down in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit

39. Before proceeding further, apt it would be to refer to the law laid down by this Court observed as under:

75. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner, in any event, came to be informed of the reasons for his arrest when arrest is not only a substantial, but proper compliance of the provision. Section 19(1) also does not state that the grounds of arrest are to be informed to the person arrested, immediately. use of the word in Section 19(1) “as soon as may be” makes it clear that grounds of arrest may not be supplied at the time of arrest itself or immediately on arrest, but as soon as may be. See Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (Supra) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Pertinently, Section 19 of the PMLA also uses the expression “informed of the grounds of such arrest” 22(1), and does not use the expression “communicate Scheme of Section 19 engrafts an additional safeguard against stipulating in sub-Section (2) thereof, that the Competent Section (1) … … …” forward a copy of the order of arrest, along with the material in his possession - on the basis of which Adjudicating Authority, which the Adjudicating Authority is obliged to keep under his custody. We may also observe that the obligation cast on the Section 19(1) does not oblige the Competent Authority to arrest to the arrestee simultaneously with his arrest arrest at the time of his arrest itself. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner, in any arrest is not only a substantial, but proper Section 19(1) also does not state that the grounds of arrest are to be informed to the person arrested, immediately. The use of the word in Section 19(1) “as soon as may be” makes it clear that grounds of arrest may not f arrest itself or immediately on arrest, but as soon as may be. (Supra). xxxx Pertinently, Section 19 of the PMLA also uses the expression “informed of the grounds of such arrest” - as used 22(1), and does not use the expression “communicate engrafts an additional safeguard against Section (2) thereof, that the Competent copy of the order of arrest, on the basis of which Adjudicating Authority is We may also observe that the obligation cast on the t oblige the Competent Authority to arrest to the arrestee simultaneously with his arrest. In the In the facts of the present case, the petitioner, in any a detailed application was moved before the learned Special Judge on 26.08.2017, i.e. the day following his arrest, setting out the materials which also virtually contain the grounds of his arrest. The said application was, admittedly, served upon the petitioner on 26.08.2017……

76. Thus, the petitioner, in any event, became aware of the grounds of his arrest when he and his legal p provided with a copy of the application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 PMLA dated 26.08.2017 to seek his ED custody remand.…...”

40. Since, in Moin Akhtar Qureshi made to the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs. UOI to the relevant paragraph from the said decision also, which reads as under: “190. that the grounds of arrest are to be informed to the person arrested, immediately. The use of the word in the said provision “as soon as may be”, makes it clear that grounds of arrest are not to be to be s time of arrest itself or immediately on arrest, but as soon as may be. that in the Arrest Order itself the grounds of arrest should be stated, that too in writing, the Legislature would have made st the word ‘immediately’ or ‘at the time of arrest’. fact that Legislature has not done so but used the words ‘as soon as may be’, thereby indicating that there is no statutory requirement of grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing and that too at the time of arrest or immediately after the arrest. The use of the 2016 SCC Online Bombay 9338 the materials which also virtually contain the grounds of the petitioner on 26.08.2017…… Thus, the petitioner, in any event, became aware of the grounds of his arrest when he and his legal practitioner were his ED custody remand.…...” Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra), a specific reference was Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs. UOI,11 therefore, it is apposite to refer to the relevant paragraph from the said decision also, which reads as under: “190. The provision of Section 19(1) also does not state that grounds of arrest are not to be to be supplied at the soon as may be. If it was the intention of the Legislature would have made strict provision to that effect by using the word ‘immediately’ or ‘at the time of arrest’. 2016 SCC Online Bombay 9338 the materials which also virtually contain the grounds of Thus, the petitioner, in any event, became aware of the ractitioner were ), a specific reference was therefore, it is apposite to refer to the relevant paragraph from the said decision also, which reads as under:- The provision of Section 19(1) also does not state upplied at the If it was the intention of the Legislature rict provision to that effect by using the word ‘immediately’ or ‘at the time of arrest’. The words ‘as soon as may be’ implies that such grounds of arrest should be communicated at the earliest.”

41. Clearly, Moin Akhtar Qure communication of the grounds of arrest is not only a substantial, but proper compliance of the provision; (ii)Section 19(1) of the PMLA does not oblige the Competent Authority to inform/serve the order of arrest, or for such arrest to the arrestee simultaneously with his arrest, but as soon as may be and (iii) when the arrestee, or his counsel is provided with a copy of the application filed by the ED under Section 167 Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 PMLA seeking custody remand, he will stand informed in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA if the said application sets out the materials which also virtually contain the grounds of his arrest.

42. The correctness of the law laid down in was, however, doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit Larger Bench for consideration. The relevant extract from Omprakash Dixit “56. Consistent with the view that the decisions of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi and Vakamulla Chandrashekhar Directorate larger Bench, the following questions for consideration: (i) (ii)

(iii) Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) lays down that the Competent Authority to inform/serve the order of arrest, or king custody remand, he will stand informed in terms of which also virtually contain the grounds of his arrest. The correctness of the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi, however, doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit (supra) and the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for consideration. The relevant extract from (supra) reads thus: Consistent with judicial discipline, since this Bench is of Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India Vakamulla Chandrashekhar v. Enforcement (supra) require reconsideration, it refe xxxx xxxx Under Section 19 of PMLA read with Rules 2(h) and 2(g) of the PML Arrest Rules read with Rule 6 ) lays down that – (i) oral the Competent Authority to inform/serve the order of arrest, or the grounds king custody remand, he will stand informed in terms of, however, doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in ) and the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for consideration. The relevant extract from Rajbhushan judicial discipline, since this Bench is of Union of India (supra) Enforcement (supra) require reconsideration, it refers to a Under Section 19 of PMLA read with Rules 2(h) and 2(g) of the PML Arrest Rules read with Rule 6 For the sake of com question now stands settled by the decision of Supreme Court in Bansal (supra) but the directions contained therein making it mandatory for the arresting officer to communicate the grounds of writing, are prospective in nature.

43. The issue whether the law laid down in or in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit detain this Court any longer, in as much as, it is trite reference to a larger bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision is rendered in the reference. Till the time, the decisions cited at the bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.

44. This position has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in Kashmir National Conference & Anr. judgment reads as under: “35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relati Ashok Sadarangani vs. Union of India:(2012) 11 SCC 321 and Form III thereof, does a person arrested under Section 19(1) of the PMLA have to be furnished a copy of the grounds of arrest? If so, should they be furnished soon enough to enable the person arrested to apply for bail or to oppose the application for remand? What are the consequences of the failure to do so?”… For the sake of completeness it may be mentioned here that the aforesaid question now stands settled by the decision of Supreme Court in but the directions contained therein making it mandatory for the arresting officer to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing, are prospective in nature. The issue whether the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit (supra) would be applicable, need not detain this Court any longer, in as much as, it is trite law that pendency of a red in any way, they continue to hold the field.12 This position has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr.13 The relevant para judgment reads as under: We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. Ashok Sadarangani vs. Union of India:(2012) 11 SCC 321 and Form III thereof, does a person arrested under e to be furnished a copy of the grounds of arrest? If so, should they be furnished soon enough to enable the person arrested to apply for bail or to oppose the application for remand? What are the consequences of the failure to do so?”… pleteness it may be mentioned here that the aforesaid question now stands settled by the decision of Supreme Court in Pankaj but the directions contained therein making it mandatory for arrest to the arrestee in ) would be applicable, need not law that pendency of a This position has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. vs. Jammu and The relevant para of the said We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High ng thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolu that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not ope High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts in National Insurance Company Limited Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.”

45. Keeping the aforesaid law in perspective, there is absolutely no doubt that at the time of arrest of the petitioner i.e., on 09.06.2023, the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi continued till the pronouncement whereby Moin Akhtar Qureshi Bhujbal (supra) were specifically overruled. Meaning thereby that at the time of petitioner’s arrest, oral communication of the grounds of arrest was proper compliance of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

46. The above position is also fortified by the observation of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishor Arora furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date 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. we lay down the position in law. We make it absolu review petition, as the case may be. It is also not ope y the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench National Insurance Company Limited (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do case before it.” Keeping the aforesaid law in perspective, there is absolutely no doubt Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) was holding the field, which position continued till the pronouncement of decision in Pankaj Bansal Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) and Chhagan Chandrakant were specifically overruled. Meaning thereby that at the ompliance of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. The above position is also fortified by the observation of the Supreme Ram Kishor Arora (supra) wherein the Court held that non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a Judge Bench National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay. The High Courts, of course, will do Keeping the aforesaid law in perspective, there is absolutely no doubt ) was holding the field, which position Pankaj Bansal (supra) Chhagan Chandrakant were specifically overruled. Meaning thereby that at the ompliance of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. The above position is also fortified by the observation of the Supreme (supra) wherein the Court held that non pronouncement of

47. Now reverting to the factual conundrum which still looms large in the present case and needs to be decided is whether the petitioner was orally communicated, or in other words shown, the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and for this purpose reference to ‘ground of arrest’ and other contemporaneous documents is im

48. Clearly, the document ‘ground of arrest’ bears the signatures of the petitioner at two points. One, immediately after the conclusion of narration of grounds of arrest. Secondly, below the endorsement made in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in petitioner has been intimated about his rights as an arrestee and his wife has been informed about his arrest “ Therefore, there is no substance in Mr. Pahwa’s contention that the of the petitioner on the ‘ground of arrest’ is only a token of acknowledgement of the compliance of mandate of

49. To be noted that Mr. Pahwa did not deny the signatures of the petitioner on the ‘ground of arrest’. However, his each page of the ‘ground of arrest’ does not contain the signature of the petitioner, it raises a doubt about its authenticity. A perusal of the ‘ground of arrest’ reveals that it runs into three pages and there appears to be continuity of matter and flow of the typed contents from one page to another. Besides that, the document is also signed by two independent witnesses which lends credence to the same. No provision of law has been pointed out and there seems to be none which re ‘ground of arrest’ is to be signed by the petitioner. That apart, it has to be borne in mind that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested prior to the decision of Pankaj Bansal Now reverting to the factual conundrum which still looms large in the contemporaneous documents is imperative. Clearly, the document ‘ground of arrest’ bears the signatures of the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu (supra) to the effect that the been informed about his arrest “physically” at “22.28” Therefore, there is no substance in Mr. Pahwa’s contention that the acknowledgement of the compliance of mandate of D.K. Basu To be noted that Mr. Pahwa did not deny the signatures of the petitioner on the ‘ground of arrest’. However, his submission was that since tinuity of matter and flow of the typed contents from one page to pointed out and there seems to be none which requires that each page of Pankaj Bansal (supra) when oral communication of the ground Now reverting to the factual conundrum which still looms large in the Clearly, the document ‘ground of arrest’ bears the signatures of the to the effect that the “22.28” on 09.06.2023. Therefore, there is no substance in Mr. Pahwa’s contention that the signature D.K. Basu (supra). To be noted that Mr. Pahwa did not deny the signatures of the submission was that since tinuity of matter and flow of the typed contents from one page to quires that each page of when oral communication of the grounds of arrest was proper compliance of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

50. Therefore, merely because each page of the ‘ground of arrest’ is not signed by the petitioner cannot be a reason to disbelieve the existence of the said document, or to negat and informed to the petitioner.

51. Yet another striking feature that is evident from the ‘ground of arrest’ is that the petitioner has made corrections in his own handwriting in the endorsement in terms of the that his wife has been 09.06.2023, which goes to show that the arrest had taken place at petitioner’s residence at W his wife was undisputedly present.

52. The panchnama that the Arresting Officer had presented the ‘Arrest Memo’ to the petitioner and informed him the grounds of arrest and Arrest Memo as token of him being informed the grounds of his arrest. The panchnama is also signed by the wife of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that a copy of the petitioner / his wife and the same Just because the petitioner signed the ‘ground of arrest’ as a token of acknowledgement of having been informed the grounds of his arrest, cannot be reason to disca what is recorded in the any stage. Therefore, merely because each page of the ‘ground of arrest’ is not said document, or to negate the fact that the grounds of arrest were shown and informed to the petitioner. Yet another striking feature that is evident from the ‘ground of arrest’ endorsement in terms of the decision of D.K. Basu (supra) that his wife has been informed about his arrest “physically” petitioner’s residence at W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi his wife was undisputedly present. panchnama which was prepared contemporaneously also records and informed him the grounds of arrest and that the petitioner signed th is also signed by the wife of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that a copy of the panchnama was supplied by the respondent to the petitioner / his wife and the same has also been annexed with the petition. he panchnama does not specifically mentions that the having been informed the grounds of his arrest, cannot be reason to disca what is recorded in the panchnama when the same has not been disputed Therefore, merely because each page of the ‘ground of arrest’ is not e the fact that the grounds of arrest were shown Yet another striking feature that is evident from the ‘ground of arrest’ (supra) so as to insert “physically” at “22:28” on II, New Delhi where which was prepared contemporaneously also records the petitioner signed the is also signed by the wife of the petitioner. It is not in dispute was supplied by the respondent to the has also been annexed with the petition. does not specifically mentions that the having been informed the grounds of his arrest, cannot be reason to discard when the same has not been disputed at

53. The contention of the petitioner that the ‘Arrest Order’ dated 09.06.2023 records that the petitioner was arrested at Parvartan Bhawan shows that the said document was was carried out at the residence of the petitioner, perusal of the ‘Arrest Order’ shows that the petitioner apart from affixing his signature has also appended the date which his wife was informed about his arrest, in his own handwriting, therefore, the said document cannot be said to be In so far as the place of arrest is concerned, it is evident from the ‘Arrest Memo’ that the place viz., W-29, Greater Kailash with the petitioner from the date of arrest itself but there is no whisper either in the petition or in the bail application th recorded nor any such objection seems to have been taken before the learned Special Judge. The search affected at the residence of the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses. The wife of the petitioner has also signed the Merely because there is some typographical error in the ‘Arrest Order’ with regard to the place of arrest, the same will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and vitiate his arrest.

54. Furthermore, the source of ‘ground of arrest’ and other contemporaneous documents viz., Arrest Memo, Order is official i.e., the Enforcement Directorate, therefore, they would carry presumption of correctness under Section 114(e) of 1872 that official acts have been regularly performed. Reference in this The contention of the petitioner that the ‘Arrest Order’ dated said document was not in existence at the time was carried out at the residence of the petitioner, does not hold water. A the ‘Arrest Order’ shows that the petitioner apart from affixing his signature has also appended the date “9/6/23”, and the time therefore, the said document cannot be said to be ante-dated Memo’ that the place of arrest of the petitioner is shown as his residence 29, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi and this document was available with the petitioner from the date of arrest itself but there is no whisper either in the petition or in the bail application that place of arrest is wrongly Special Judge. The search panchnama also reveals that the arrest was tnesses. The wife of the petitioner has also signed the petitioner and vitiate his arrest. Furthermore, the source of ‘ground of arrest’ and other contemporaneous documents viz., Arrest Memo, Panchnama and carry presumption of correctness under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, The contention of the petitioner that the ‘Arrest Order’ dated not in existence at the time, the search does not hold water. A the ‘Arrest Order’ shows that the petitioner apart from affixing his, and the time “22:28” at dated or ante-timed. of arrest of the petitioner is shown as his residence II, New Delhi and this document was available with the petitioner from the date of arrest itself but there is no whisper either at place of arrest is wrongly also reveals that the arrest was tnesses. The wife of the petitioner has also signed the panchnama. Furthermore, the source of ‘ground of arrest’ and other Panchnama and Arrest the Evidence Act, regard may be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) “37. ………There is a statutory pre 114 of the Evidence Act that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. The accepted meaning of Section 114(e) is that when an official act is proved to have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly done. person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude can do neither credit to the magist the public. It can only run down the prestige of police administration. (See Saurashtra [AIR 1956 SC 217: 1956 Cri LJ 421].

55. Apart from the aforesaid presumption to be drawn under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is otherwise ample material on record in the form of following pleadings and findings in the remand order which suggests that the ‘ground of arrest’ was shown petitioner as a matter of fact:

(i) The ED filed an application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. on 10.06.2023, seeking remand of the petitioner. In para 13 of the said application, it was specifically alleged that the petitioner was show arrest’ and ‘arrest order’ to which the petitioner appended his signature after having gone through it. T reads as under:

13. order to which after having gone through it, he 14(2002) 5 SCC 234 regard may be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)14 wherein it was held as under: ………There is a statutory presumption under Section presumed to have been regularly done. The presumption that a an attitude can do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to administration. (See Aher Raja Khima v. [AIR 1956 SC 217: 1956 Cri LJ 421]. Apart from the aforesaid presumption to be drawn under Section suggests that the ‘ground of arrest’ was shown and thus, informed to the petitioner as a matter of fact: The ED filed an application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. on 10.06.2023, was specifically alleged that the petitioner was show signature after having gone through it. The relevant extract of para 13 reads as under: ….. He was shown the ground of arrest, arrest regard may be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in Devender Pal wherein it was held as under: sumption under Section The presumption that a racy nor good to State of Apart from the aforesaid presumption to be drawn under Section and thus, informed to the The ED filed an application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. on 10.06.2023, was specifically alleged that the petitioner was shown the ‘ground of he relevant extract of para 13 nd of arrest, arrest appended his signature. He was arrested vide arrest memo dated 09.06.2023.”

(ii) On 10.06.2023, before the learned Special Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have argued informed the grounds of his arrest but the learned Special Judge, after perusing the case diary rejected the said argument. The relevant part of the order dated 10.06.2023 reads as under: “7.I have considered the submissions a sides as well ED.” “8. ……. accused that accused was not informed about the grounds of his arrest is contrary to the records has been same is duly signed by him and countersigned by two independent witnesses

(iii) Subsequently, an application seeking modification/rectification of the order dated 10.06.2023 was filed by the paragraph 8 of the said order inadvertently the words ‘provided with’ have occurred, instead of the word ‘shown’, as correctly recorded in the last sentence of paragraph 13 of the remand application. Accordingly, a prayer for r word ‘shown’ was made. The relevant paragraph and prayer clause of the rectification application read as under:

(iv) The learned Special Judge said application considering the averments made in paragraph 13 of the ED’s remand application. The relevant para of the order dated 20.06.2023 reads as under: “16. paragraph no.13 of the ED application under 167 Cr.P.C. moved on 10.06.2023, I am inclined to make the corrections as sought in the application and accordingly, the work ‘ paragraph no.8 of the said order is replaced by the word ‘

56. The narration in the fo the findings which have been recorded in the remand order dated 10.06.2023, as corrected by order dated 20.06.2023, as follows contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the petitioner/accused not informed about the grounds of his arrest, is contrary to the records the petitioner/accused has been the grounds of arrest have been duly signed by the petitioner and countersigned by two independ ‘shown’,as correctly recorded in the last sentence of Paragraph 13 of the Remand Application… xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Prayer rectification of the inadvertent error which has crept in with the word ‘shown’.” The learned Special Judge vide order dated 20.06.2023 allo 20.06.2023 reads as under: Considering the averment contained in paragraph no.13 of the ED application under accordingly, the work ‘provided’ in the last line of word ‘shown’.” The narration in the foregoing paragraph leads this Court to sum up, 10.06.2023, as corrected by order dated 20.06.2023, as follows contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the petitioner/accused not informed about the grounds of his arrest, is contrary to the records the petitioner/accused has been ‘shown’ the grounds of his arrest, and (iii) countersigned by two independent witnesses. Needless to add, that such in the last sentence of xxxx the inadvertent error which has crept in order dated 20.06.2023 allowed the Considering the averment contained in paragraph no.13 of the ED application under Section ’ in the last line of regoing paragraph leads this Court to sum up, 10.06.2023, as corrected by order dated 20.06.2023, as follows – (i) the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the petitioner/accused was not informed about the grounds of his arrest, is contrary to the records, (ii) the grounds of his arrest, and (iii) ent witnesses. Needless to add, that such findings were recorded by the learned Special Judge after having gone through the case diary.

57. The petitioner though sought limited correction of order dated 10.06.2023 seeking to replace the word ‘shown’ but conspicuously no rectification was sought findings recorded in the order dated 10.06.2023, which gives rise to an inference that the petitioner is not aggrieved with the said findings. Even in the present petitio the finding that the petitioner was shown the ‘ground of arrest’ and the same is duly signed by him and countersigned by two independent witnesses, has remained unassailed.

58. Even in the present petit petitioner was not shown the grounds of arrest. The stand taken is that the petitioner was forced to sign some alleged documents purportedly the grounds of arrest but the same were never supplied. Paragraph 8 petition reads as under: “8. Therefore, it is the specific case of the Petitioner that no grounds of arrest has been communicated or were explained nor any explanation given for his arrest. Moreover, forced to signsome alleged docume of arrestand same was never supplied with the grounds of arrest.” Evidently, there is no signed the grounds of arrest, rather the stand taken by the pet show that he had signed the grounds of arrest but a physical copy of the same was never supplied to him. This stand justifies the findings recorded through the case diary. The petitioner though sought limited correction of order dated 10.06.2023 seeking to replace the word ‘provided with’ but conspicuously no rectification was sought apropos the present petition the said findings have not been challenged. Therefore, remained unassailed. the present petition no definite case has been pleaded that the grounds of arrest but the same were never supplied. Paragraph 8 petition reads as under: any explanation given for his arrest. Moreover, Petitioner was forced to signsome alleged documents purportedly the grounds Evidently, there is no categorical denial of the fact that the petitioner had signed the grounds of arrest, rather the stand taken by the pet The petitioner though sought limited correction of order dated ‘provided with’ with the word apropos the other n the said findings have not been challenged. Therefore, ion no definite case has been pleaded that the grounds of arrest but the same were never supplied. Paragraph 8 of the Petitioner was nts purportedly the grounds denial of the fact that the petitioner had signed the grounds of arrest, rather the stand taken by the petitioner goes to in the remand order dated 10.06.2023 which were not questioned by the petitioner, and right had signed the ‘ground of arrest’. Therefore, the contention now sought to be raised that the petitioner was never shown the ‘ground of arrest’ is contrary to the record.

59. The issue deserves to be con respondent/ED had moved an application Section 167 Cr.P.C. seeking remand of the petitioner and a copy of same was undisputedly served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Special Judge on 10.06.2023. The remand application when juxtaposed with the ‘ground of arrest’ reveals that the remand application virtually contains the grounds of arrest, therefore, in view of the law laid down in (supra) the petitioner stood informed of Section 19(1) of the PMLA when he was produced before the learned Special Judge within twenty his remand.

60. In so far as the petitioner’s contention that not forward a copy of the arrest order along with the material in his possession immediately to the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the PMLA same is also devoid of merit. The petition 10:25 pm, which happened to be a Friday night. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Hossain that on Saturday i.e. 10.06.2023 and Sunday i.e. 11.06.2023 the office of therefore, copy of arrest order along with other relevant material was immediately forwarded on 12.06.2023. It is trite law that where a period is petitioner, and rightly so because the petitioner never had a doubt that he contrary to the record. The issue deserves to be considered from yet another angle. T.2023. The remand application when juxtaposed with the ‘ground of arrest, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) the petitioner stood informed of the grounds of arrest Special Judge within twenty-four hours of his arrest by the ED for seeking In so far as the petitioner’s contention that the concerned officer d section (2) of Section 19 of the PMLA same is also devoid of merit. The petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2023 at, which happened to be a Friday night. There is substance in the 11.06.2023 the office of the Adjudicating Authority remained closed, fore, copy of arrest order along with other relevant material was ly so because the petitioner never had a doubt that he sidered from yet another angle. The.2023. The remand application when juxtaposed with the ‘ground of Moin Akhtar Qureshi the grounds of arrest in terms of four hours of his arrest by the ED for seeking the concerned officer did is concerned, the rested on 09.06.2023 at, which happened to be a Friday night. There is substance in the Adjudicating Authority remained closed, fore, copy of arrest order along with other relevant material was prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office, and that period expired on a holiday, then accordi Act, 1897, the act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open.

61. The obligation flowing from the expression ‘immediately’ occurring in Section 19(2) of the PMLA has to be given meaning depending upon the context and the manner in which arrest order along with other material is to be forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with the rules. Rule 3(5) & (6) of the Rules provide envelope in an outer envelope along with an acknowledgement slip in Form II appended to the said Rules. The outer envelope is then to be sealed and the complete address of the Adjudicating Authority has to be mentioned on the sealed outer envelope. In terms of Rule 4 of the said Rules, an acknowledgement of the Adjudicating Authority, or in his absence, of the designated officer is required on the slip in Form II, which is possible only on a working day. Further, it is we something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone.16 Therefore, there is no delay in forwarding a copy of the Order of Arrest along with the material to the Adjudicating Authority.

62. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the CRLMC 4376/2023 as well as BAIL APPLN 2356/2023, deserve to be dismissed and, are accordingly dismissed. Harinder Singh v. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271 Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 expired on a holiday, then according to Section 10 of the General Clauses period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open. The obligation flowing from the expression ‘immediately’ occurring Section 19(2) of the PMLA has to be given meaning depending upon the Rule 3(5) & (6) of the Rules provides the manner of placing a sealed on a working day. Further, it is well settled that when the statute provides ight of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the arrest of dismissed and, are accordingly dismissed. Harinder Singh v. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271 Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 ng to Section 10 of the General Clauses period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open.15 The obligation flowing from the expression ‘immediately’ occurring Section 19(2) of the PMLA has to be given meaning depending upon the s the manner of placing a sealed ll settled that when the statute provides ight of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the arrest of

63. It is made clear that the merits of the case have not been the same were not urged either in the petition or in the bail application.

64. The present petition and the bail application, along with pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

65. Order dasti

66. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

JANUARY 08, 2024 dss /N.S.ASWAL/MK is made clear that the merits of the case have not been The present petition and the bail application, along with pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. under the signatures of the Court Master. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court., 2024 /MK is made clear that the merits of the case have not been considered as The present petition and the bail application, along with pending under the signatures of the Court Master.