Formal arrest of an accused already in judicial custody for a separate case does not necessitate producing them before a magistrate within 24 hours under Section 19(3) of PMLA.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Shri Sunil Shankar Yadav, Assistant Director in File No.ECIR/CEZO-1/09/2024, on the file of the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Unit-1.

2.The criminal original petition has been instituted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . to quash the arrest order dated 26.06.2024. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Abdulkumar Rajarathinam appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned arrest order is directly in violation of Section 19 (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as PMLA). It is contended that the petitioner was formally arrested on 26.06.2024 by the Enforcement Directorate and remanded to judicial custody on 15.07.2024. Thus, the respondent has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement as contemplated under of PMLA.

3.In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned senior counsel would refer the observation made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC online SC 929 . The Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal case cited supra reiterated the spirit of Section 19 of PMLA in unequivocal terms. of PMLA confers power to arrest. Sub section (1) reads as under:

(1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. Sub Section 3 reads as under:

(3) Every person arrested under sub-section(1) shall, within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Special Court or Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction:

Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Special Court or Magistrate's Court.

4.Taking exception, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would urge that in the present case, the petitioner had not been produced within 24 hours before the Special Court and thus, the impugned order of arrest is null and void.

5.Mr.N.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is factually incorrect. The petitioner was formally arrested on 26.06.2024. The impugned order of arrest itself would indicate that on the date of passing of the arrest order, the petitioner was lodged in jail No.4, Tihar Jail, Delhi. Since the Enforcement Directorate found him guilty of an offence punishable under the provisions of PMLA, formal arrest has been made by invoking Section19(1) of PMLA.

6.With reference to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not produced before the Special Court within a period of 24 hours as contemplated under Section 19 (3), the proceedings of the Special Judge/ Principal Special Judge, Chennai, dated 15.07.2024, in E.C.I.R/CEZO- I/09/2024 reveals the following facts.

“The accused Jaffer Sadiq was formally arrested by the Assistant Director Mr.Sunil Shankar Yadav, Directorate of Enforcement, Zone-1, Chennai on 26.6.2024 in terms of Sec.1