Back
UMESH A. TRIVEDI, M. K. THAKKER
Rakesh Manekchand Kothari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment discusses legality of arrest under PMLA and whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, including arguments about Section 19 and material in possession (!) (!) (!) . - It addresses the interplay between the Act and Code provisions, including the applicability of Chapter XII and Sections 154-157, 167, 172, and the overriding effect of the PMLA and its amendments (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It critiques admissibility and reliance on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA in supporting arrest/detention, including constitutional protections under Article 20(3) and Article 21 (!) (!) (!) . - It notes that since earlier orders have attained finality, a successive writ of habeas corpus may be barred absent substantial changes in circumstances or grounds not available previously (!) (!) (!) . - It recognizes a larger Supreme Court framework that remand orders must be challenged via appropriate remedies and not via habeas corpus, with summaries of law on cognizability after amendments (!) (!) . - It discusses the explicit Explanation to Section 45 (as of 2019) clarifying cognizability and non-bailability and its impact on arrest authority (!) (!) . - It concludes with the rejection of the successive habeas corpus petition and vacating interim bail, while referencing the finality of prior orders (!) (!) (!) . - Note: The references above are used to support statements about the judgment’s positions; no external case law or citations are included beyond the document’s text.
JUDGMENT :
UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs:
(b) At the interim/ad-interim stage, pending final disposal of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner may please be released in PMLA Case No. 4/2014 filed in ECIR/01/SRT/2014 dated 17.04.2014 pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), the designated Special Court under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at Ahmedabad on such terms and conditions as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(c) dispense with an affidavit in support of the Petition since the Petitioner is in custody.
(d) and/or pass any other or furth
The Enforcement Directorate officers are not Police officers under CrPC, thus they cannot seek custody beyond the initial 24 hours of arrest unless substantively justified; however, compliance with P....
The Enforcement Directorate can seek custody of arrested individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, but such custodial requests must be evaluated within the framework of existing law e....
A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable if the petitioner is in judicial custody under valid remand orders, and issues regarding the legality of arrest must be raised at the time of remand.
Written grounds of arrest must be provided to the accused under Section 19 of the PMLA; non-compliance renders the arrest illegal.
Mandatory compliance with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is essential; failure to comply renders arrest and subsequent proceedings illegal.
The detention of an individual beyond 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
