V. SENTHIL BALAJI versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 07-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 853 : 2023 INSC 677
853
CASE DETAILS
V. SENTHIL BALAJI
v.
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023)
AUGUST 07, 2023
[A.S. BOPANNA AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration: 
(i) When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under 
Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whether 
writ of Habeus Corpus would lie;
(ii) Whether s.41 CrPC has got any application to an arrest made under 
PMLA, 2002;
(iii) The actual import of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 as to 
whether the 15 days period of custody in favour of the police should be 
only within the fi rst 15 days of remand or spanning over the entire period 
of investigation - 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, as a whole.
Constitution of India – Writ of Habeus Corpus – Prevention of 
Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Respondent-Authority invoked s.19 
of the PMLA, 2002 and appellant was arrested on 14.06.2023 – Writ 
of Habeus corpus fi led – Meanwhile, respondent fi led an application 
before the Principal Sessions Judge seeking judicial custody for 15 days 
– Order of remand passed:
Held: A writ of Habeas Corpus shall only be issued when the detention 
is illegal – As a matter of rule, an order of remand by a judicial offi  cer, 
culminating into a judicial function cannot be challenged by way of a writ 
of Habeas Corpus, while it is open to the person aggrieved to seek other 
statutory remedies – When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional 
Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus 
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
would lie – Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate 
since custody becomes judicial – An order of remand has to be challenged 
only before a higher forum as provided under the CrPC, 1973 when it 
depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 
167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 read with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002 – In the 
instant case, when writ of Habeus Corpus was taken up for hearing on a 
mentioning, the appellant was duly produced before the Principal Sessions 
Judge in compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 – The custody thus 
becomes judicial as he was duly forwarded by the respondents – Therefore, 
even on the date of hearing before the High Court there was no cause for 
fi ling the Writ Petition – Added to that, an order of remand was passed on 
14.06.2023 itself – The two remand orders passed by the Court, depicted a 
clear application of mind – Despite additional grounds having been raised, 
they being an afterthought, there is no hesitation in holding that the only 
remedy open to the appellant is to approach the appropriate Court under 
the Statute – Also, as the arrest and custody were already upheld by way of 
rejection of the bail application – Therefore, even on that ground it is held 
that a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. [Paras 29, 81 and 88]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Prevention of Money 
Laundering Act, 2002 – Application of s.41A CrPC to an arrest made 
under the PMLA 2002:
Held: An Authorized Offi  cer under the PMLA, 2002 is not duty bound 
to follow the rigor of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 as against the binding 
conditions under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 – As there is already an 
exhaustive procedure contemplated under the PMLA, 2002 containing 
suffi  cient safeguards in favour of the person arrested, Section 41A of the 
CrPC, 1973 has no application at all. [Para 35]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – To eff ect an arrest 
under the Act:
Held: To eff ect an arrest, an offi  cer authorised has to assess and 
evaluate the materials in his possession – Through such materials, he is 
expected to form a reason to believe that a person has been guilty of an 
off ence punishable under the PMLA, 2002 – Thereafter, he is at liberty to 
arrest, while performing his mandatory duty of recording the reasons – The 
855
said exercise has to be followed by way of an information being served on 
the arrestee of the grounds of arrest – Any non-compliance of the mandate 
of Section 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002 would vitiate the very arrest itself – 
Under sub-section (2), the Authorised Offi  cer shall immediately, after the 
arrest, forward a copy of the order as mandated under sub-section (1) together 
with the materials in his custody, forming the basis of his belief, to the 
Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed env

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.