Jurisdiction for money laundering cases follows the location of predicate offences; the arrest and remand were valid under the PMLA.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

The petitioner, in sum and substance in the present petition, challenges his arrest order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-32), whereby. the Assistant Director while exercising the powers under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) has arrested him at 8:21 p.m. at New Delhi and supplied him the grounds of arrest by recording “reasons to believe”, which was duly served upon him and informed to one Mr. Sanjay Sharma.

2. The consequential order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-38) was passed by the Learned Special Judge, Enforcement Directorate/(Corruption Prevention), CBI Court No.2, Ghaziabad, whereby the remand application was allowed for 03 days to the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter to be referred as “ED”) from 19.11.2024 to 22.11.2024, while also dealing with the application for bail, which was impliedly rejected.

3. Similarly, challenge is also raised to the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P-41), passed by the Special Judge, wherein the petitioner was sent to judicial custody, while rejecting the argument as such, that the jurisdiction of this Court had been encroached upon.

4. As per the prayers made, the reading down and the harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the PMLA were sought to be invoked on the ground that the principal schedule/predicate offence(s) had been committed in the jurisdiction of this Court and the arresting Officer could not exercise his power arbitrarily and chose a Court for producing the person arrested, based upon his whims and fancies. Resultantly, the continued custody of the petitioner at the District Prison, Ghaziabad, pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Court at Ghaziabad, was sought to be challenged on the ground of being unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 as well as Article 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution.

5. As per prayer (C), a direction was also sought to transmit the entire records relating to arrest and remand to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Himachal Pradesh, on the ground that the Court at Ghaziabad had no territorial jurisdiction to exercise any powers of remand and carry out any proceedings qua the petitioner.

6. It is pertinent to mention that initially the petitioner had approached the Apex Court by filing Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No. 514 of 2024, wherein permission was sought to withdraw the writ petition, as not pressed, with liberty to approach this Court. Accordingly, in terms of the orders dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Apex Court writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid, and this order would have an important bearing on the decision of this case, reads as under:-

“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition as not pressed with liberty to approach the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

Permission is granted.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”

7. The present petition was then filed in this Court on 31.12.2024, praying for the necessary reliefs mentioned above and had come up for the first time on 04.01.2025, just before the winter vacation had to commence. On account of the pleadings being completed, the matter was initially taken up by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on 23.01.2025 dismissed the application for interim directions being Cr.M.P No. 62 of 2025 after recording statement of learned Senior Counsel that he would not be pressing the relief (C), as claimed in the Writ petition, wherein a direction has been sought to transmit the entire case records from the Court at Ghaziabad to the Court of competent jurisdiction in Himachal Pradesh. The said order was subject matter of the Special Leave to Appeal (crl.) No(s). 2606 of 2025, wherein the apex Court had observed that the order was interim in nature and would not have any bearing on the main Writ petit