LexRAM KISHOR ARORA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS RAM KISHOR ARORA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (Criminal Appeal No. 3865 of 2023) DECEMBER 15, 2023 [BELA M. TRIVEDI AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the action of the respondent ED in handing over the document containing the grounds of the arrest to arrestee and taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature thereon, as a token of he having read the same, and in not furnishing a copy thereof to the arrestee at the time of arrest would render the arrest illegal u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – High Court dismissed the petition seeking declaration that the arrest of the appellant on 27.06.2023 by the respondent Directorate of Enforcement was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant u/ Arts. 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Held: In the instant case, it is not disputed that the appellant was handed over the document containing grounds of arrest when he was arrested, and he also put his signature below the said grounds of arrest, after making an endorsement that he was informed and had the grounds of arrest – The appellant in the rejoinder fi led by him has neither disputed the said endorsement nor his signature below the said endorsement – The only contention raised was that he was not furnished a copy of the document containing the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest – Since the appellant was indisputably informed about the grounds of arrest and he having also put his signature and the endorsement on the said document of having been informed, there was due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 19 of PMLA and his arrest could neither be said to be violative of the said provision nor of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India. [Para 24] [2023] 16 S.C.R. 743 : 2023 INSC 1082 743 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 19 – Informing and furnishing of grounds of arrest: Held: In opinion of this Court the person asserted, 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 suffi cient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. [Para 22] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 1244 – The judgment cannot be given retrospective eff ect. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Union of India and Another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. Etc., [1989] 3 SCR 316 : (1989) 2 SCC 754; Chandra Prakash and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, [2002] 2 SCR 913 : (2002) 4 SCC 234; Abdul Jabar Butt and Another vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1957] SCR 51 : AIR 1957 SC 281 – followed. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 929; Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, [2014] 4 SCR 486 : (2014) 16 SCC 623; Durga Pada Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (1972) 2 SCC 656 – relied on. Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 1244; V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by Deputy Director and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 934; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, [2008] 13 SCR 421 : (2008) 14 SCC 171 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.3865 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2023 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No.2408 of 2023. 745 Appearances: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advs., R.K. Handoo, Yoginder Handoo, Siddharth Bhatli, Aditya Chaudhary, Ashwin Kataria, Nishaank Mattoo, Garvit Solanki, Abhishek Pati, Hirday Virdi, Siddharth Singh, Yatin Dev, Ms. Lashita Dhingra, Ms. Khyati Jain, Ms. Medha Gaur, Advs. for the Appellant. S.V. Raju, A.S.G., Zoheb Hussain, Nachiketa Joshi, Annam Venkatsh, Chitvan Singhal, Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Manisha Dubey, Gaurav Saini, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.