Neeraj Singal v. Directorate of Enforcement

order Duty j

(iii) That presen the Im

(iv) That presen P Mr. Avishkar Sing Singh and Mr. V. Wa versus RATE OF ENFORCEMENT .. Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossai with Mr. Vivek Baibhav, Ms. Mani Pranjal Tripathi, Adv Kumar, AD-ED a Sinha, AEO-ED. MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGMENT

AN, J. nvolved in the above two cases is inextric being disposed of by a common judgmen 4376/2023 has been filed by the petiti are the arrest of the Petitioner being tion of the settled tenets of law in Sect C; are all consequential actions including t r(s) dated 10.06.2023 & 20.06.2023 pas judge/ Special CBI Judge as null and voi pending the hearing and final dispo nt Petition, this Hon'ble Court be plea mpugned Order(S) dated 10.06.2023 & 20 pending the hearing and final dispo nt. Petition, this Hon'ble Court be ghvi, Mr. Garnil adhwa, Advs. ... Respondent n, Spl. Counsel Gurnani, Mr. isha Dubey, Ms. vocates, Mr. Anuj and Mr. Sanket cably intertwined, nt. ioner seeking the g in gross tion 41A(3) the remand ssed by Ld. id; osal of the sed to stay

0.06.2023; osal of the pleased to releas and in

(v) That invest

29.08

(vi) For s the na

¶3BAIL APPL seeking grant of r Directorate of Enfo

¶4The brief fa cases are as under: i. The peti Chairman (hereinaf proceedin 2016, BS

15.05.20 ii. Before B Corporat of the C investiga Investiga filed a co Act, 409/467/ P se the Petitioner from the abjectly illeg ncarceration; pending the hearing and final dispos tigation in ECIR No. DLZO-II/06/2

8.2019 against the Petitioner be stayed; such other and further interim/ad-interim ature and circumstances of the case may LN 2356/2023 has been filed on behalf regular bail in ECIR/DLZO-II/06/2019 orcement. acts which are relevant for disposing of : tioner is a businessman and was the e n and Managing Director of M/s Bh fter referred to as 'BSL'). Howev ngs initiated under the Insolvency and B SL was acquired by Tata Steel in terms o 018 passed by the National Company Law BSL was taken over by Tata Steel, te Affairs in exercise of its powers under ompanies Act, 2013 vide order dated 03 ation into the affairs of BSL by the ation Officer (hereinafter referred to as "S omplaint case under various provisions o including Section and /468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Co gal custody sal, further dated m reliefs as require." f of the petitioner registered by the the aforesaid two ex-promoter, Vice ushan Steel Ltd. ver, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code, of the order dated w Tribunal. the Ministry of Section 212(1)(c)

3.05.2016 ordered e Serious Fraud SFIO"). The SFIO of the Companies under Sections ode, 1860. iii. Thereafte ECIR un Act, 200 petitione with the petitione 46,000 C connivan knowing name of of proce companie Mr. Neer Singal. iv. It is the investiga before th supplied pages co companie v. Later on the resp

09.06.20 due to h postpone P er, the Directorate of Enforcement regis nder the provisions of Prevention of M 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the PMLA" er is involved in one of the biggest bankin e offence of money laundering. It is er has caused loss to the public to the tune Crores. It is the case of the respondent tha nce with other accused persons / ly resorted to illegitimate acquisition of BSL & other group companies and indul eds of crime through a complex web o es having a common core i.e. ownershi raj Singal (the petitioner herein) and Mr case of the petitioner that he has co-o ation of the respondent, in as much as, he Directorate of Enforcement about 1 documents which are running into app omprising of bank statements and balance es for the period 2009-2017. , the petitioner received summons dated pondent directing him to appear on 023, the petitioner failed to appear befor his alleged illness and requested his a ed to some other date or that he may be a stered the subject Money Laundering ") alleging that the ng frauds coupled alleged that the e of more than Rs. at the petitioner in business entities loan funds in the lged in laundering of more than 150 ip and control of r. Bharat Bhushan operated with the he has appeared 14 times and has proximately 7500 e sheets of all 148

03.06.2023 from

09.06.2023. On re the respondent appearance to be allowed to appear through sent his a vi. It is the c pm the residenti was arres vii. The p

(CBI), R granted r dated 20

¶5Initially, wh petitioner were m Abhishek Manu S learned Senior Ad learned senior cou arrest of the petiti Criminal Procedur 19(1) of the PMLA Elaborating on this in terms of the sai of arrest as the acc document running in violation of Sec along with materia was not forwarded on this argument, P video conferencing. The petitioner on t authorized representative to appear before case of the petitioner that on the same da officials of the respondent entered a al premises of the petitioner and thereaf sted by the respondent at 10:25 pm. petitioner was produced before the Ld Rouse Avenue Court on 10.06.2023, wh remand for 10 days which was further ex .06.2023. hen the matter was argued, submissions made by Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senio Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate and M dvocate. The thrust of the submissions nsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner ioner is contrary to Section 41 and 41A re; (ii) the arrest of the petitioner is in vio A as grounds of arrest were not informed s argument, it was submitted that the pro id provision would entail providing a cop cused cannot be expected to recollect fro g into numerous pages; (iii) The arrest of ction 19(2) of the PMLA as the copy o al in possession of the Arresting Officer d to the Adjudicating Authority immedi it was submitted that the arrest of the pet the said date also e the respondent. ay, at about 04:50 and searched the fter, the petitioner d. Special Judge hen the Ld. Judge xtended vide order on behalf of the or Advocate; Mr Mr Vikas Pahwa, advanced by the r was that – (i) the A of the Code of olation of Section d to the petitioner. ocess of informing py of the grounds om his memory a f petitioner is also of the arrest order r in terms thereof iately. Expanding titioner was made on 09.06.2023 wh on 12.06.2023, as 4).

¶6The controv compliance of the provision is extrac

¶19Power Assistant D behalf by th has on the believe (th that any pe this Act, he be, inform

(2) The Di other offic under sub-the materia to the Adj manner as shall keep prescribed

(3) Every p twenty-four Magistrate having juri Provided th time necess [Special Co P hereas intimation to the Adjudicating Au is borne out from the arrest intimation let versy raised in the present cases revolves e mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, t cted below for ready reference: r of Arrest - (1) If the Director, Deput Director or any other officer authoris he Central Government by general or spe e basis of material in his possession, e reason for such belief to be recorded erson has been guilty of an offence punish e may arrest such person and shall, as so him of the grounds for such arrest. irector, Deputy Director, Assistant Direc cer shall, immediately after arrest of s -section (1), forward a copy of the order al in his possession, referred to in that s judicating Authority, in a sealed envelo may be prescribed and such Adjudicatin such order and material for such period, d. person arrested under sub-section (1) sh r hours, be taken to a [Special Court o e or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the ca isdiction: hat the period of twenty-four hours shall sary for the journey from the place of a ourt or] Magistrate's Court." thority was given tter (Annexure R-s around the non-therefore, the said ty Director, sed in this ecial order, reason to in writing) hable under oon as may ctor or any uch person r along with sub-section, ope, in the ng Authority d, as may be hall, within or] Judicial ase may be, exclude the arrest to the

¶7During pend of Section 19(1) pronouncements o Supreme Court hel not duty bound to as, there is already containing sufficie It was furth followed by an inf arrest and any no PMLA, 2002 wou decision in V. Sent "35. In Officer the rig binding The ab inasmu contem safegua the CrP

¶39To and eva materia person the PM while p 12023 SCC OnLine SC 93 P dency of the present petition, the law on of the PMLA has evolved through of the Supreme Court. In V. Senthil Ba ld that an authorized officer under the PM follow the rigors of Section 41A of the C y an exhaustive procedure contemplated ent safeguards in favour of the person arre her held that the arrest of the arrestee formation being 'served' on the arrestee on-compliance of the mandate of Sect uld vitiate the very arrest itself. The rel thil Balaji (supra) reads thus: n light of the aforesaid discussion, an r under the PMLA, 2002 is not duty boun or of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 as g conditions under Section 19 of the PM bove discussion would lead to the conc uch as there is already an exhaustive mplated under the PMLA, 2002 containin ards in favour of the person arrested, Sec PC, 1973 has no application at all. xxxx xxxx xxxx effect an arrest, an officer authorised ha aluate the materials in his possession. Th als, he is expected to form a reason to be has been guilty of an offence punish MLA, 2002. Thereafter, he is at liberty performing his mandatory duty of rec the interpretation various judicial alaji vs. State,1the MLA Act, 2002 is CrPC, in as much under the PMLA ested. e is bound to be of the grounds of tion 19(1) of the levant part of the Authorized nd to follow against the MLA, 2002. clusion that procedure ng sufficient ction 41A of xxxx as to assess hrough such elieve that a hable under y to arrest, cording the reasons informa arrest. Section arrest shall im order a materia the Adj to state functio excepti

¶8In view of submissions in res the Supreme Cour and the applicabil However, those iss by the pronouncem Union of India.2

¶9In Pankaj B arrest shall be furn Further, the Supre the grounds of a relevant paragraph "36. That bei such written arrested pers There are tw 22023 SCC OnLine SC 12 P s. The said exercise has to be followed by ation being served on the arrestee of the Any non-compliance of the ma n 19(1) of the PMLA, 2002 would vitiat itself. Under sub-section (2), the Authori mmediately, after the arrest, forward a as mandated under sub-section (1) togeth als in his custody, forming the basis of h judicating Authority, in a sealed envelop e, compliance of sub-section (2) is also on of the arresting authority which ion." (emphas f the above position, the parties made spect of the interpretation of the word 'se rt in context of compliance of Section 19 lity of the said judgment to the facts of sues paled into insignificance after the po ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P Bansal (supra), it was, inter-alia, held th nished to the accused / arrested person w eme Court observed that informing the a arrest in writing would be necessary ' hs of the decision in Pankaj Bansal (supr ing so, there is no valid reason as to wh grounds of arrest should not be furnis son as a matter of course and without wo primary reasons as to why this wo y way of an grounds of andate of te the very ised Officer copy of the her with the his belief, to pe. Needless o a solemn brooks no sis supplied) e their respective erved' as used by 9(1) of the PMLA the present case. osition was settled Pankaj Bansal vs. hat the grounds of without exception. arrested person of 'henceforth'. The a) reads as under: hy a copy of shed to the t exception. ould be the advisable co principle. Fir read out to t nothing furth boil down to the authorize proper compl situation inso claims that w of arrest wer neither here compliance i person straig precarious s thereof can b grounds of ar of Section 19 due acknowle dixit of the au

¶37The secon to adopt is information b this informati he/she is bein legal counsel under Section this regard, th placed on rec six pages. Th relation to P produced bef produced at earlier, this d event their gr be well-nigh Bansal to rec being read o More so, as a P ourse of action to be followed as a rstly, in the event such grounds of arrest the arrested person or read by such p her and this fact is disputed in a given c the word of the arrested person against ed officer as to whether or not there liance in this regard. In the case on hand ofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Thou witnesses were present and certified that t re read out and explained to him in Hi nor there as he did not sign the docum n this regard would entail release of th ghtaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji (sup situation is easily avoided and the co be obviated very simply by furnishing rrest, as recorded by the authorized offic 9(1) of the Act of 2002, to the arrested pe edgment, instead of leaving it to the deb uthorized officer. nd reason as to why this would be the pro s the constitutional objective underl being given to the arrested person. Con ion is not only to apprise the arrested per ng arrested but also to enable such pers l and, thereafter, present a case before n 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so he grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji cord and we find that the same run into e grounds of arrest recorded in the case Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have fore this Court, but it was contended tha the time of remand. However, as alr did not serve the intended purpose. Fur rounds of arrest were equally voluminou impossible for either Pankaj Bansal cord and remember all that they had rea out for future recall so as to avail lega a person who has just been arrested wou matter of t are orally person with case, it may the word of is due and d, that is the ugh the ED the grounds indi, that is ment. Non-he arrested pra). Such a onsequence the written cer in terms erson under batable ipse oper course lying such nveyance of rson of why rson to seek e the Court chooses. In (supra) are as many as on hand in e not been at they were eady noted rther, in the us, it would or Basant ad or heard al remedies. ld not be in a calm and co of rememberi read out to h statutory pro the authoritie the grounds o claim due com Article 22(1) the Act of 200 xxxx

¶39On the ab the constituti the Act of 200 of arrest, we copy of such arrested pers The decision Qureshi (supr Chandrakant lay down the position is tha permitted rea left it at that form of com compliance the Constituti hesitation in h provisions of already note proceeding ag immediately a the first ECI arbitrary exe and, in conse thereafter, to P ollected frame of mind and may be utterly ing the contents of the grounds of arrest him/her. The very purpose of this constitu otection would be rendered nugatory by es concerned to merely read out or permit of arrest, irrespective of their length and mpliance with the constitutional require and the statutory mandate under Sectio

¶02xxxx xxxx xxxx bove analysis, to give true meaning and ional and the statutory mandate of Secti 02 of informing the arrested person of th hold that it would be necessary, hencefo h written grounds of arrest is furnish son as a matter of course and without ns of the Delhi High Court in Mo ra) and the Bombay High Court i Bhujbal (supra), which hold to the contr e correct law. In the case on hand, th at the ED's Investigating Officer merely ading of the grounds of arrest of the app t, which is also disputed by the appellan mmunication is not found to be adequa with the mandate of Arti ion and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, holding that their arrest was not in keepi f Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. F ed supra, the clandestine conduct of gainst the appellants, by recording the se after they secured interim protection in IR, does not commend acceptance as rcise of power. In effect, the arrest of the equence, their remand to the custody of th judicial custody, cannot be sustained." (emphasi y incapable t read by or utional and y permitting t reading of d detail, and ment under on 19(1) of purpose to on 19(1) of he grounds forth, that a hed to the t exception. oin Akhtar in Chhagan rary, do not he admitted read out or pellants and nts. As this ate to fulfil cle 22(1) of we have no ing with the Further, as the ED in econd ECIR relation to it reeks of e appellants he ED and, is supplied)

¶10After the p an oral mentioning were heard on th prospective in its a

¶11It was argue Bansal (supra) is has expressly held shall become effec of the petitioner th existing law that i new law, therefore

¶12The questio (supra)will apply p Supreme Court in Court held that the implied that the re arrested person as till the date of pro furnishing of grou held to be illegal n same in writing c reads thus: "23. As disc Case also no the officers a 32023 SCC OnLine SC 16 P ronouncement of judgment in Pankaj B g by the parties, the matter was listed aga he limited aspect as to whether the application. ed on behalf of the respondent that the de prospective in its application because th d that the obligation of furnishing the ctive 'henceforth'. On the contrary, it was hat the Supreme Court has only clarified t is, Section 19 of the PMLA and has no e, the said judgment is retrospective in its on whether the directions passed in prospectively or not, came up for conside Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of En e use of expression 'henceforth' in Pank equirement of furnishing grounds of arres soon as after his arrest was not mandat onouncement of the said judgment and a unds of arrest in writing till the said date nor the action of the concerned officer in could be faulted with. The relevant par cernible from the judgment in Pank oticing the inconsistent practice being f arresting the persons under Section 19 682[Date of Decision 15th December, 2023] Bansal (supra), on ain and the parties said decision is ecision in Pankaj he Supreme Court grounds of arrest s argued on behalf the position of the ot formulated any application. Pankaj Bansal eration before the nforcement.3 The kaj Bansal (supra) st in writing to the tory or obligatory accordingly, non-e could neither be not furnishing the rt of the decision kaj Bansal followed by of PMLA, directed to fu of course, "h pronounceme "henceforth" grounds of a after his arre of the said j Counsel Mr. was required accepted wh necessary "h arrest is furn and without arrest in wri in Pankaj Ba the action of in writing cou the person ar compliance o the Constituti

¶13In Ram Kis expression 'as soo been specifically India4 nor the sa Balaji (supra) or in that the interpreta significance. Refe Abdul Jabar Butt 42022 SCC OnLine SC 92 5 AIR 1957 SC 281 P urnish the grounds of arrest in writing a henceforth", meaning thereby from the ent of the judgment. The very use of " implied that the said requirement of arrest in writing to the arrested person est was not the mandatory or obligatory t judgment. The submission of the learn Singhvi for the Appellant that the said d to be given effect retrospectively hen the judgment itself states that it henceforth" that a copy of such written nished to the arrested person as a matte exception. Hence non furnishing of g iting till the date of pronouncement of ansal case could neither be held to be f the concerned officer in not furnishin uld be faulted with. As such, the action o rrested about the grounds of his arrest is of Section 19 of PMLA as also Arti ion of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal (s (emphasi hor Arora (supra) the Supreme Court a on as may be' as occurring in Section 19 explained in Vijay Madanlal Choudha aid expression has been interpreted in n Pankaj Bansal (supra). Accordingly, th ation of the expression 'as soon as m rring to the judgment of a Constitution t and Another vs. State of Jammu & as a matter date of the f the word f furnishing as soon as till the date ned Senior d judgment cannot be would be grounds of r of course grounds of f judgment illegal nor g the same of informing a sufficient cle 22(1) of upra)." is supplied) lso noted that the of PMLA has not ary vs. Union of either V. Senthil he Court observed may be' assumes Bench in case of Kashmir5 and a three-judge bench the Court held tha 19 of PMLA is re avoidable delay' o period of time. Th 'reasonably requis arrest would be tw

¶14Elaborating compliance of not Constitution of Ind the grounds of ar communication ab as possible withou 'reasonably requis the arrest. The rele "21. In view contained in as- "as earl reasonably time. Since concerned o material in immediately person arre arrest, in reasonably grounds of h 6 (1972) 2 SCC 656 P decision in Durga Pada Ghosh vs. State at the expression 'as soon as may be' con equired to be construed as – 'as early as or 'within reasonable convenient' or 'reas he Court also observed that the 'reasonab site' time to inform the arrestee about th wenty-four hours of the arrest. g further, the Court observed that it wo only Section 19 of PMLA but also of A dia, if the person arrested is informed or m rrest at the time of his arrest and is fu bout the grounds of arrest as soon as may ut avoidable delay' and within 'reasonabl site' period of time, which would be twe evant part of the decision reads as under: w of the above, the expression "as soon a n Section 19 of PMLA is required to be ly as possible without avoidable delay" convenient" or "reasonably requisite" e by way of safeguard a duty is cast officer to forward a copy of the order alo n his possession to the Adjudicating y after the arrest of the person, and t ested to the concerned court within 24 h our opinion, the reasonably conv requisite time to inform the arrestee his arrest would be twenty-four hours of of West Bengal,6 ntained in Section s possible without sonably requisite' bly convenient' or he grounds of his ould be sufficient rticle 22(1) of the made aware about urnished a written y be i.e. 'as early ly convenient' and enty-four hours of as may be" e construed or "within " period of t upon the ong with the g Authority to take the hours of the venient or about the f the arrest.

¶22In Vijay categoricall about the gr mandate of that the ar Special Cou remand on relevant rec involvement laundering. he is inform arrest at th communica i.e as early requisite tim sufficient c also of Artic

¶15After the pr both the parties requested for listin submissions as to present case. Acco and 21.12.2023.

¶16For the sak stage of hearing th dairy was also sho the learned special of arrest' to the c counsel. Subsequ now forms part of P Madanlal Choudhary (supra), it ly held that so long as the person has bee rounds of his arrest, that is sufficient com Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is als rrested person before being produced urt within twenty-four hours or for that p each occasion, the Court is free to lo cords made available by the Authority t of the arrested person in the offence Therefore, in our opinion the person med or made aware orally about the g he time of his arrest and is furnished ation about the grounds of arrest as soon as possible and within reasonably conv me of twenty-four hours of his arrest, tha ompliance of not only Section 19 of cle 22(1) of the Constitution of India." (emphas ronouncement of decision in Ram Kish orally mentioned the present case on ng the matter to enable the parties to mak the applicability of the said decision to ordingly, the matter was listed for hearin ke of completeness, it may noticed that he document 'ground of arrest' forming own to the Court. However, it is only on l counsel for the respondent / ED handed court and a copy thereof was supplied t uently, the said document was filed on 2 the court record. has been en informed mpliance of so observed before the purposes of ok into the y about the of money-arrested, if grounds of d a written n as may be venient and at would be PMLA but sis supplied) hor Arora (supra) n 19.12.2023 and ke their respective o the facts of the ng on 20.12.2023 during the initial g part of the case n 21.12.2023 that d over the 'ground to the petitioner's

22.12.2023, which

¶17Mr. Vikas P that the case of th Kishor Arora (sup said case the appel of arrest and he having been infor petitioner has disp order' / 'reasons beginning as is evi

¶18He submits supplied to the pet the arrest was mad the 'Arrest Order' to Mr. Pahwa, had provided to the pe indicated in the Pa

¶19He further s Bhawan, Dr. A.P.J arrest. He submit petitioner was arre was not in existen residence of the p the signature of the Arrest Memo but also been informed P Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the p he petitioner is squarely covered by the pra). Elaborating on his argument, he su llant therein was undisputedly informed a had also put his signatures as an ackn rmed the grounds of arrest, but in the puted the very existence of 'ground of a to believe' at the time of his arrest rig ident from the remand order dated 10.06.2 that the 'Arrest Memo' is the only docu titioner as the same finds reference in the de during the search proceedings. There and the 'ground of arrest' in the panchn d the 'Arrest Order' and 'ground of arres etitioner at the time of his arrest, it wo anchnama dated 09.06.2023. submits that the 'Arrest Order' was exec J Abdul Kalam Marg, New Delhi and n ts that the very fact that the said docume ested at Pravartan Bhawan shows that th nce at the time when the search was c petitioner. He submits that though the A e petitioner as an acknowledgement of ha there is no acknowledgement of the peti d of the grounds of his arrest. petitioner submits decision of Ram ubmits that in the about the grounds nowledgement of present case the arrest' and 'arrest ght from the very 2023. ument which was panchnama since is no reference to nama. According st' been shown or uld have been so cuted at Pravartan not at the place of ent states that the he said document carried out at the Arrest Order bears aving received the itioner that he has

¶20He submits Order' and 'groun as pleaded by resp

¶21Referring to Forms and the Ma along with the m Retention) Rules, that order means same were neither the 'ground of arr end of the hearing

¶22To sum up, Memo, the Arre

10.06.2023 and 20 learned Special Ju 'ground of arrest' nor provided, the violation of Sectio

¶23Per contra, respondent/ED su inception is that th provided with the to the grounds (

10.06.2023; the re the petitioner seek P that even the panchanama does not recor nd of arrest' were printed at the residence ondent/ED in its additional affidavit date o Rule 2(h) of the Prevention of Money-anner of Forwarding A copy of Order of A material to the adjudicating authority a 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ru 'Arrest Order' and includes the ground r 'shown' nor 'supplied' to the petitioner. rest' have been supplied by the responde after about two hundred days from the da Mr. Pahwa submits that the conjoint read est Order, Panchanama, Remand Ap

0.06.2023 and the respective order(s) pas udge (PMLA) leads to an irresistible co and 'Arrest Order' were neither shown erefore, the arrest of the petitioner on on 19 of PMLA rendering the same to be i , Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned special ubmits that the case of the petitioner he petitioner was shown the 'ground of a ground of arrest. In support of his conte D) and (E) of the petition; remand a emand order dated 10.06.2023 and the ap king rectification of remand order dated 10 rd that the 'Arrest e of the petitioner ed 07.08.2023. -Laundering (The Arrest of a person and its period of ules'), he submits of arrest but the . He contends that ent/ED at the fag ate of arrest. ding of the Arrest pplications dated sed therein by the onclusion that the n to the petitioner

09.06.2023 is in illegal. counsel for the r from the very arrest' but was not ention, he referred application dated pplication filed by

0.06.2023.

¶24Inviting the

10.06.2023, he sub diary before recor said order are pr includes the 'groun with. The relevant "7.I have consi as well as gone "8. ……. The accused was n contrary to th grounds of hi countersigned b

¶25He submits

10.06.2023 and th "shown" but no establishes that th duly signed the sam

¶26Inviting the Hossain, submits t petitioner at two p same. Besides that given to his wife, w of arrest have not b

¶27According t 'ground of arrest' P attention of the Court to para 7 of the re bmits that the learned Special Judge had rding his findings, therefore, the finding remised on material available in the c nd of arrest', therefore, the said findings part of the order dated 10.06.2023 reads idered the submissions advanced by both e through the case diary produced by the E contention of the Ld. Counsel for the ac not informed about the grounds of hi he records. Accused has been provide is arrest and same is duly signed by by two independent witnesses." that the petitioner sought rectification o hereby prayed to replace the word "prov rectification was sought of any othe he 'ground of arrest' were shown to the me as a token thereof. e attention of the Court to the 'ground that the 'ground of arrest' clearly bear the points and the petitioner has also append t, it also bears the time when information which falsifies the petitioner's contention been informed to him. to Mr. Hossain, yet another aspect that is is that the petitioner in his own handwr emand order dated d perused the case gs recorded in the case dairy, which cannot be faulted as under: the sides ED." ccused that is arrest is ed with the y him and of the order dated vided" with word er finding which petitioner and he d of arrest', Mr. e signatures of the ded a date on the n of his arrest was n that the grounds s evident from the riting has also put his wife's name a submits that the en informed about hi taken place at the submits that had th 'telephonically' w submits that the witnesses.

¶28Inviting the submits that this d the place of arrest petition nor in the is not the residence

¶29Referring t specifically been informed of the information, the p Memo. He subm panchnama or to th

¶30He submits panchnama, groun carry a presumpti Act.

¶31He contends laid down in Pank as held by the Sup P as the person who has been informed ndorsement on the 'ground of arrest' that s arrest 'physically' to his wife, shows t e petitioner's residence in the presence he arrest taken place at Pravartan Bhawa would have made sense instead of 'physi ground of arrest is also signed by attention of the Court to the Arrest Me document is part of the petition and spec as W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-II, Delhi bail application, there is a whisper that t e of the petitioner in Greater Kailash, Par to the panchnama, Mr. Hossain subm recorded in the panchnama that the grounds of arrest and as a token o petitioner had put his signatures and da mits that no specific challenge has b he factual aspects recorded therein. that all the documents viz., arrest me nds of arrest etc. are official document on of correctness under Section 114(e) s that the law as regard furnishing of gro kaj Bansal (supra) has been made applica preme Court in Ram Kishore Arora (su of his arrest. He the petitioner has that the arrest had e of his wife. He an, then the word cally'. He further two independent emo, Mr. Hossain cifically mentions but neither in the the place of arrest rt-II, Delhi. mits that it has e petitioner was f receiving such ate on the Arrest been laid to the emo, arrest order, ts, therefore, they ) of the Evidence ounds of arrest as able prospectively upra), therefore, it was the decision o

(DB)7 which was

09.06.2023. He su communication of of Section 19(1) of

¶32He submits mentioned in the learned Special disclosed the grou there was no viol regard has been p and a coordinate b of Enforcement.8

¶33In rejoinder, Rajbhushan Om correctness of the apropos the requir referred to the lar Moin Akhtar Qure

¶34Inviting atte submits that it is o which raises a se According to Mr. 72017 SCC OnLine Del 12 8W.P. (Crl) 2048/2023 9(2018) SCC Online Del 7 P of this Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs holding the field when the petitioner ubmits that in terms of Moin Akhtar Qur f 'ground of arrest' was proper complianc f the PMLA. that the contents of 'ground of arrest' remand application moved by the respo Judge on 10.06.2023, therefore, the unds of arrest to petitioner at the earli lation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. placed on the judgment of Moin Akhtar bench of this Court in Ram Kishore Aror , Mr. Pahwa submits that a Division Benc mprakash Dixitvs.Union of India9 h judgment in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (sup rement of furnishing a copy of the grou rger Bench of this Court, therefore, the eshi (supra) was never a good law. ention of the Court to the 'ground of arr only the last page which has been signed erious doubt about the very execution o Pahwa, the signature on the 'ground of 2108 7281 s. Union of India was arrested on reshi (supra), oral ce of the mandate are the same as ondent before the respondent had iest. Accordingly, Reliance in this r Qureshi (supra) ra vs. Directorate ch of this Court in had doubted the pra) and the issue unds of arrest was law laid down in rest', Mr. Pahwa, by the petitioner, of the document. arrest' is only for the purpose of info of the Supreme Co cannot be constru 'ground of arrest'.

¶35I have heard the learned Specia record.

¶36It is an ad furnished/supplied his arrest. As la (supra) the requ accused/arrested p date of directions therefore, non-furn who was arrested o

¶37However, th grounds of arrest w question is in affir of Section 19(1) prevailing prior to (supra) apropos t informed in terms

¶38As noted ab decision in Panka this Court in Moi 10(1997) 1 SCC 416 P orming the rights of the arrestee, in term ourt passed in State of West Bengal vs. ued to be an acknowledgment of being d the learned Senior Counsel for the peti al Counsel for the respondent/ED and dmitted case of the parties that the pe d a copy of the grounds of arrest in writi aid down by the Supreme Court in Ra uirement of furnishing grounds of person in writing was not mandatory or passed in Pankaj Bansal (supra) on 3 nishing of grounds of arrest to the peti on 09.06.2023, could not be held illegal. he controversy which remains unresolve were shown to the petitioner and in case rmative, whether it is sufficient complian of PMLA. This calls for examining t the date of pronouncement of judgment the manner in which the grounds of a of Section 19(1) of the PMLA. bove, the contention of Mr. Hossain is aj Bansal (supra), it was the decision o in Akhtar Qureshi (supra), which was h ms of the judgment D.K. Basu,10 and g informed of the tioner, as well as, have perused the etitioner was not ing at the time of am Kishor Arora f arrest to the obligatory till the rd October, 2023, itioner in writing, ed is whether the the answer to the ce of the mandate the legal position in Pankaj Bansal arrest were to be that prior to the f Division Bench holding the field. On the other hand down in Moin Ak Bench of this Cou law that was prev down in Rajbhush

¶39Before proc down by this Co observed as under: "65. On con learned cou follows: P d, Mr. Pahwa contends that the correctne khtar Qureshi (supra) was doubted by rt in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit (sup vailing at the time of petitioner's arrest han Omprakash Dixit (supra). ceeding further, apt it would be to refe ourt in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra), : nsideration of the aforesaid decision reli unsels, the position, in law, which eme i. The procedural safeguards in cla Article 22 are meant to afford th opportunity to the arrested person to r mistake, misapprehension or misunders the minds of the arresting authority an know exactly what the accusation again that he can exercise the second right, consulting a legal practitioner of his ch be defended by him. Clause (2) of provides the material safeguard that th person must be produced before a within 24 hours of such arrest so independent authority exercising judic may, without delay, apply its mind to See Madhu Limaye (Supra). ii. Neither Section 19(1) of PMLA definition of the expression 'order' a Sub-Clause (h) of Rule 2, of the PM Rules provide that the grounds for s are mandatorily required to be pr writing to the person arrested at the t arrest. Oral communication of the g ess of the law laid another Division pra), therefore, the was the law laid er to the law laid , wherein it was ied upon by erges is as ause (1) of he earliest remove any standing in nd, also, to nst him is so namely, of hoice and to Article 22 he arrested Magistrate o that an cial powers o his case. A nor the as given in MLA Arrest such arrest rovided in time of his grounds of

¶73Pertinen expression in Article 22 the grounds used the exp 22(1), since Scheme of S misuse of th stipulating Authority sh sub-Section along with t the reasona offence pun Adjudicating obliged to ke

¶74We may Competent arrestee, "a Section 19( inform/serv arrest to th present case arrest at the

¶75In the f event, came P arrest is not only a substantial, b compliance of the provision. Section does not state that the grounds of arres informed to the person arrested, immed use of the word in Section 19(1) "as so be" makes it clear that grounds of arre be supplied at the time of arrest immediately on arrest, but as soon a See Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (S xxxx xxxx xxxx x ntly, Section 19 of the PMLA also "informed of the grounds of such arrest 2(1), and does not use the expression "co s of such arrest". The Legislature has c pression "informed", which is also used e Section 19 deals with the power of a Section 19 engrafts an additional safegua he power of arrest by the Competent Au in sub-Section (2) thereof, that the hall "immediately after arrest of such pe

(1) … … …" forward a copy of the orde the material in his possession - on the bas able belief is formed that the person is g ishable under the Act, in a sealed enve g Authority, which the Adjudicating A eep under his custody. y also observe that the obligation ca Authority under Section 19(1) is to i as soon as may be" of the grounds of s

(1) does not oblige the Competent A e the order of arrest, or the grounds he arrestee simultaneously with his arr e, the petitioner was informed of the gro e time of his arrest itself. facts of the present case, the petition e to be informed of the reasons for his a but proper 19(1) also st are to be diately. The oon as may est may not t itself or as may be. Supra). xxxx o uses the t" - as used ommunicate consciously d in Article arrest. The ard against uthority, by Competent erson under er of arrest, sis of which guilty of an elope to the Authority is ast on the inform the uch arrest. uthority to s for such rest. In the ounds of his ner, in any arrest when a detailed a Judge on 26 out the mat his arrest. T the petitione

¶76Thus, th grounds of provided wi Cr.P.C. read his ED cust

¶40Since, in M made to the decisi Chhagan Chandra to the relevant para "190. that t perso the sa that g time soon that i should would the w fact th 'as so statut comm arrest 112016 SCC Online Bomb P application was moved before the learn

6.08.2017, i.e. the day following his arr terials which also virtually contain the The said application was, admittedly, se er on 26.08.2017…… he petitioner, in any event, became aw his arrest when he and his legal practit ith a copy of the application under S d with Section 65 PMLA dated 26.08.20 tody remand.…..." (emphasi Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra), a specif ion of the Division Bench of the Bomb akant Bhujbal vs. UOI,11 therefore, it is agraph from the said decision also, which . The provision of Section 19(1) also doe the grounds of arrest are to be inform n arrested, immediately. The use of th aid provision "as soon as may be", mak grounds of arrest are not to be to be supp of arrest itself or immediately on arr as may be. If it was the intention of the in the Arrest Order itself the grounds d be stated, that too in writing, the d have made strict provision to that effe word 'immediately' or 'at the time of a hat Legislature has not done so but used oon as may be', thereby indicating that tory requirement of grounds of arr municated in writing and that too at t t or immediately after the arrest. The bay 9338 ned Special rest, setting grounds of erved upon ware of the tioner were Section 167 017 to seek is supplied) fic reference was ay High Court in s apposite to refer h reads as under:- es not state med to the he word in kes it clear plied at the rest, but as Legislature s of arrest Legislature ect by using arrest'. The d the words there is no rest to be the time of use of the words arrest

¶41Clearly, Mo communication of compliance of the the Competent Au for such arrest to t may be and (iii) w the application file 65 PMLA seekin Section 19(1) of t which also virtuall

¶42The correctn was, however, d Rajbhushan Omp Larger Bench for Omprakash Dixit "56. Consis the view tha in Moin and Vakamu Directorate larger Benc

(i)

(ii)

(iii) P s 'as soon as may be' implies that such t should be communicated at the earliest (emphasi oin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) lays dow f the grounds of arrest is not only a subst provision; (ii)Section 19(1) of the PMLA uthority to inform/serve the order of arre the arrestee simultaneously with his arre when the arrestee, or his counsel is provid ed by the ED under Section 167 Cr.P.C. g custody remand, he will stand infor the PMLA if the said application sets ly contain the grounds of his arrest. ness of the law laid down in Moin Akhtar doubted by another Division Bench o prakash Dixit (supra) and the matter w r consideration. The relevant extract f (supra) reads thus: stent with judicial discipline, since this B at the decisions of the coordinate Bench of Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of In ulla Chandrashekhar v. E (supra) require reconsideration, it r h, the following questions for considerati xxxx xxxx Under Section 19 of PMLA read with and 2(g) of the PML Arrest Rules read w grounds of t." is supplied) n that – (i) oral tantial, but proper A does not oblige st, or the grounds est, but as soon as ded with a copy of read with Section rmed in terms of out the materials r Qureshi (supra) of this Court in was referred to a from Rajbhushan Bench is of of this Court ndia (supra) Enforcement refers to a ion: Rules 2(h) with Rule 6 For the sake of co question now stan Bansal (supra) but the arresting office writing, are prospe

¶43The issue w or in Rajbhushan detain this Court a reference to a la involving the sam the reference. Till altered in any way

¶44This positio in its recent decisi Kashmir Nationa judgment reads as "35. We are Courts not judgment of larger Benc 12 Ashok Sadarangani vs. 132023 SCC OnLine SC 1 P and Form III thereof, does a person arre Section 19(1) of the PMLA have to be f copy of the grounds of arrest? If so, sho furnished soon enough to enable t arrested to apply for bail or to o application for remand? What consequences of the failure to do so?"… ompleteness it may be mentioned here t nds settled by the decision of Supreme t the directions contained therein making er to communicate the grounds of arrest ective in nature. whether the law laid down in Moin Akhta Omprakash Dixit (supra) would be app any longer, in as much as, it is trite law th arger bench, does not mean that all o me issue would remain stayed till a decisi l the time, the decisions cited at the bar ar y, they continue to hold the field.12 on has also been reiterated by the Hon'bl ion in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors al Conference & Anr.13 The relevant under: e seeing before us judgments and orde deciding cases on the ground that t f this Court on this subject is either ref ch or a review petition relating thereto Union of India:(2012) 11 SCC 321 ested under furnished a ould they be the person oppose the are the … that the aforesaid Court in Pankaj g it mandatory for to the arrestee in r Qureshi (supra) plicable, need not hat pendency of a other proceedings ion is rendered in re not modified or le Supreme Court s. vs. Jammu and para of the said rs by High the leading eferred to a is pending. We have als deference to Coordinate we lay down that the Hi basis of the directed by t review petit High Court has been do when faced strength of followed by in National Sethi, (2017 so with car case before

¶45Keeping the that at the time of down in Moin Akh continued till the whereby Moin A Bhujbal (supra) w time of petitioner' proper compliance

¶46The above p Court in Ram K furnishing of grou judgment in Panka action of the conce faulted with. P so come across examples of High Cour o judgments of this Court on the score t Bench has doubted its correctness. In t n the position in law. We make it absol igh Courts will proceed to decide matt law as it stands. It is not open, unless s this Court, to await an outcome of a refe tion, as the case may be. It is also not t to refuse to follow a judgment by sta oubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In d with conflicting judgments by Benche f this Court, it is the earlier one whic y the High Courts, as held by a 5-Ju Insurance Company Limited 7) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of cou reful regard to the facts and circumstan it." e aforesaid law in perspective, there is ab f arrest of the petitioner i.e., on 09.06.2 htar Qureshi (supra) was holding the fiel pronouncement of decision in Panka Akhtar Qureshi (supra) and Chhaga were specifically overruled. Meaning th s arrest, oral communication of the grou e of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the position is also fortified by the observatio Kishor Arora (supra) wherein the Cou unds of arrest in writing till the date of p aj Bansal case could neither be held to erned officer in not furnishing the same in rts refusing that a later this regard, lutely clear ters on the specifically ference or a t open to a ating that it n any case, es of equal ch is to be udge Bench d v. Pranay urse, will do nces of the bsolutely no doubt 2023, the law laid ld, which position aj Bansal (supra) an Chandrakant hereby that at the unds of arrest was e PMLA. on of the Supreme urt held that non pronouncement of be illegal nor the n writing could be

¶47Now reverti present case and n communicated, or his arrest and for contemporaneous d

¶48Clearly, the petitioner at two p of grounds of arres judgment of the S petitioner has been been informed ab Therefore, there is of the petitioner acknowledgement

¶49To be note petitioner on the 'g each page of the petitioner, it raises of arrest' reveals continuity of mat another. Besides witnesses which le pointed out and th 'ground of arrest' borne in mind that decision of Pankaj P ing to the factual conundrum which still l needs to be decided is whether the peti in other words shown, the grounds of ar r this purpose reference to 'ground of documents is imperative. e document 'ground of arrest' bears the points. One, immediately after the conclu st. Secondly, below the endorsement ma Supreme Court in D.K. Basu (supra) to t n intimated about his rights as an arrestee bout his arrest "physically" at "22.28" s no substance in Mr. Pahwa's contention r on the 'ground of arrest' is on of the compliance of mandate of D.K. Ba ed that Mr. Pahwa did not deny the s ground of arrest'. However, his submissi 'ground of arrest' does not contain the s a doubt about its authenticity. A perus that it runs into three pages and the tter and flow of the typed contents fr that, the document is also signed by ends credence to the same. No provision here seems to be none which requires t is to be signed by the petitioner. That a t in the present case, the petitioner was ar aj Bansal (supra) when oral communicati looms large in the itioner was orally rrest at the time of arrest' and other signatures of the usion of narration ade in terms of the the effect that the e and his wife has " on 09.06.2023. that the signature nly a token of asu (supra). signatures of the ion was that since e signature of the sal of the 'ground ere appears to be rom one page to two independent n of law has been that each page of apart, it has to be rrested prior to the ion of the grounds of arrest was prop PMLA.

¶50Therefore, m signed by the petit said document, or and informed to th

¶51Yet another is that the petition endorsement in te that his wife has b

09.06.2023, whic petitioner's reside his wife was undis

¶52The panchn that the Arresting and informed him Arrest Memo as to panchnama is also that a copy of th petitioner / his wi Just because the petitioner signed t having been inform what is recorded in any stage. P per compliance of the provisions of Sec merely because each page of the 'ground tioner cannot be a reason to disbelieve th to negate the fact that the grounds of a he petitioner. striking feature that is evident from the ner has made corrections in his own ha erms of the decision of D.K. Basu (supr been informed about his arrest "physicall ch goes to show that the arrest had nce at W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-II, N sputedly present. nama which was prepared contemporaneo Officer had presented the 'Arrest Memo m the grounds of arrest and that the peti oken of him being informed the grounds o signed by the wife of the petitioner. It he panchnama was supplied by the re fe and the same has also been annexed panchnama does not specifically m the 'ground of arrest' as a token of ack med the grounds of his arrest, cannot be n the panchnama when the same has not ction 19(1) of the d of arrest' is not he existence of the arrest were shown 'ground of arrest' andwriting in the ra) so as to insert ly" at "22:28" on d taken place at New Delhi where ously also records o' to the petitioner itioner signed the of his arrest. The t is not in dispute espondent to the with the petition. mentions that the knowledgement of reason to discard t been disputed at

¶53The conten

09.06.2023 record shows that the sai was carried out at perusal of the 'Arr signature has also which his wife w therefore, the said In so far as the pl Memo' that the p viz., W-29, Greate with the petitioner in the petition or recorded nor any s Special Judge. Th affected at the resi witnesses. The w Merely because th regard to the plac petitioner and vitia

¶54Furthermore contemporaneous Order is official i carry presumption 1872 that official P ntion of the petitioner that the 'Arre ds that the petitioner was arrested at P id document was not in existence at the t the residence of the petitioner, does no rest Order' shows that the petitioner apart o appended the date "9/6/23", and the was informed about his arrest, in his o d document cannot be said to be ante-dat lace of arrest is concerned, it is evident lace of arrest of the petitioner is shown er Kailash-II, New Delhi and this docum r from the date of arrest itself but there is r in the bail application that place of a such objection seems to have been taken b he search panchnama also reveals tha idence of the petitioner in the presence of wife of the petitioner has also signed here is some typographical error in the 'A ce of arrest, the same will not enure to t ate his arrest. e, the source of 'ground of arr documents viz., Arrest Memo, Panchn i.e., the Enforcement Directorate, there n of correctness under Section 114(e) of t l acts have been regularly performed. R est Order' dated Parvartan Bhawan e time, the search ot hold water. A t from affixing his time "22:28" at own handwriting, ted or ante-timed. t from the 'Arrest n as his residence ment was available no whisper either arrest is wrongly before the learned at the arrest was f two independent the panchnama. Arrest Order' with the benefit of the rest' and other nama and Arrest efore, they would the Evidence Act, Reference in this regard may be had Singh v. State (NC "37. ……… 114 of the E regularly pe that when an presumed to person acts officer as of distrust and an attitude c the public. administrati Saurashtra [

¶55Apart from 114(e) of the Evid the form of follow suggests that the petitioner as a mat

(i) The ED file seeking rem was specific arrest' and signature aft reads as und

¶13order 14(2002) 5 SCC 234 P d to the decision of the Supreme Court CT of Delhi)14 wherein it was held as und …There is a statutory presumption und Evidence Act that judicial and official acts erformed. The accepted meaning of Sectio n official act is proved to have been don o have been regularly done. The presump s honestly applies as much in favour o f other persons, and it is not a judicial a d suspect him without good grounds the can do neither credit to the magistracy n It can only run down the prestige ion. (See Aher Raja Khima v. [AIR 1956 SC 217 : 1956 Cri LJ 421]. the aforesaid presumption to be draw dence Act, there is otherwise ample mat wing pleadings and findings in the rem 'ground of arrest' was shown and thus tter of fact: d an application under Section 167 Cr.P.C mand of the petitioner. In para 13 of the s cally alleged that the petitioner was show 'arrest order' to which the petition fter having gone through it. The relevant der: ….. He was shown the ground of arres r to which after having gone throug in Devender Pal der: der Section s have been on 114(e) is ne, it will be ption that a of a police approach to erefor. Such nor good to e of police State of wn under Section erial on record in mand order which , informed to the C. on 10.06.2023, said application, it wn the 'ground of ner appended his extract of para 13 st, arrest h it, he appen memo

(ii) On 10.06.20 for the petit informed the perusing the of the order "7.I h sides ED." "8. … accus groun has b same indep

(iii) Subsequentl order dated paragraph 8 have occurr the last se Accordingly word 'show the rectificat "2. In Order 'provi P nded his signature. He was arrested vid o dated 09.06.2023." 023, before the learned Special Judge, th tioner appears to have argued that the p e grounds of his arrest but the learned Sp e case diary rejected the said argument. dated 10.06.2023 reads as under: have considered the submissions advance as well as gone through the case diary p ……. The contention of the Ld. Coun sed that accused was not informed nds of his arrest is contrary to the record been provided with the grounds of his is duly signed by him and countersign pendent witnesses." (emphasis ly, an application seeking modification/re

10.06.2023 was filed by the petitioner of the said order inadvertently the word red, instead of the word 'shown', as corr entence of paragraph 13 of the rem y, a prayer for replacing the word 'pro n' was made. The relevant paragraph and tion application read as under: n the last sentence of Paragraph 8 of th r dated

10.06.2023, inadvertently t ided with' have occurred, instead of de arrest he learned counsel petitioner was not pecial Judge, after The relevant part d by both the produced by the sel for the about the ds. Accused arrest and ned by two supplied) ectification of the r alleging that in ds 'provided with' rectly recorded in mand application. ovided with' with d prayer clause of he aforesaid the words f the word 'show Parag Accor rectifi the la dated with t

(iv) The learned said applica the ED's re

20.06.2023 r "16. parag 167 C make accor parag word

¶56The narratio the findings whi

10.06.2023, as co contention of the L not informed abou the petitioner/accu the grounds of countersigned by P wn',as correctly recorded in the last s graph 13 of the Remand Application… xxxx xxxx xxxx xx Prayer rdingly, it is humble prayer to carry ou fication of the inadvertent error which h ast sentence of Paragraph 8 of the afore d 10.06.2023 by replacing the words 'pro the word 'shown'." (emphasis s d Special Judge vide order dated 20.06.2 ation considering the averments made in emand application. The relevant para of reads as under: Considering the averment contai graph no.13 of the ED application under Cr.P.C. moved on 10.06.2023, I am inc the corrections as sought in the applica rdingly, the work 'provided' in the las graph no.8 of the said order is replace 'shown'." on in the foregoing paragraph leads this ich have been recorded in the rema orrected by order dated 20.06.2023, as Ld. Counsel for the accused that the petiti ut the grounds of his arrest, is contrary t used has been 'shown' the grounds of hi arrest have been duly signed by th two independent witnesses. Needless t sentence of xxx t necessary has crept in esaid Order ovided with' supplied) 2023 allowed the n paragraph 13 of f the order dated ined in r Section clined to ation and st line of ed by the Court to sum up, and order dated follows – (i) the ioner/accused was o the records, (ii) is arrest, and (iii) e petitioner and to add, that such findings were rec through the case di

¶57The petitio

10.06.2023 seekin 'shown' but consp findings recorded inference that the the present petitio the finding that the is duly signed by h remained unassaile

¶58Even in the petitioner was not petitioner was fo grounds of arrest petition reads as un "8. Therefore, grounds of arre any explanatio forced to signs of arrestand s arrest." Evidently, there is signed the grounds show that he had same was never su P corded by the learned Special Judge a iary. oner though sought limited correction ng to replace the word 'provided with picuously no rectification was sought a in the order dated 10.06.2023, which petitioner is not aggrieved with the said on the said findings have not been challe e petitioner was shown the 'ground of arr him and countersigned by two independe ed. present petition no definite case has been t shown the grounds of arrest. The stand orced to sign some alleged documents but the same were never supplied. Pa nder: it is the specific case of the Petitione est has been communicated or were expl on given for his arrest. Moreover, Petiti some alleged documents purportedly the same was never supplied with the gr (emphasis s no categorical denial of the fact that t s of arrest, rather the stand taken by the signed the grounds of arrest but a phy upplied to him. This stand justifies the after having gone of order dated h' with the word apropos the other gives rise to an findings. Even in enged. Therefore, rest' and the same ent witnesses, has n pleaded that the d taken is that the s purportedly the aragraph 8 of the er that no lained nor ioner was e grounds rounds of s supplied) the petitioner had petitioner goes to ysical copy of the findings recorded in the remand ord petitioner, and rig had signed the 'gr be raised that the contrary to the reco

¶59The issue d respondent/ED ha remand of the peti the learned counse

10.06.2023. The r arrest' reveals that arrest, therefore, i (supra) the petitio Section 19(1) of Special Judge with his remand.

¶60In so far as not forward a co possession immed mandate of sub-se same is also devoi 10:25 pm, which h contention of Mr.

11.06.2023 the o therefore, copy o immediately forwa P der dated 10.06.2023 which were not q ghtly so because the petitioner never had round of arrest'. Therefore, the contenti e petitioner was never shown the 'gro ord. deserves to be considered from yet an ad moved an application Section 167 itioner and a copy of same was undisput el for the petitioner before the learned remand application when juxtaposed wit t the remand application virtually contai in view of the law laid down in Moin oner stood informed of the grounds of a the PMLA when he was produced be hin twenty-four hours of his arrest by th the petitioner's contention that the conc opy of the arrest order along with the diately to the Adjudicating Authority ection (2) of Section 19 of the PMLA id of merit. The petitioner was arrested happened to be a Friday night. There is Hossain that on Saturday i.e. 10.06.202 office of the Adjudicating Authority r of arrest order along with other releva arded on 12.06.2023. It is trite law that questioned by the d a doubt that he on now sought to ound of arrest' is nother angle. The Cr.P.C. seeking tedly served upon Special Judge on th the 'ground of ns the grounds of Akhtar Qureshi arrest in terms of efore the learned he ED for seeking cerned officer did e material in his in terms of the is concerned, the on 09.06.2023 at s substance in the 3 and Sunday i.e. remained closed, ant material was where a period is prescribed for the expired on a holid Act, 1897, the ac period, if it is done

¶61The obligati in Section 19(2) o context and the ma be forwarded to t Rule 3(5) & (6) envelope in an out II appended to the the complete addre the sealed outer acknowledgement designated officer on a working day. something to be d alone.16 Therefore Arrest along with t

¶62In light of th the petitioner is ill CRLMC 4376/202 dismissed and, are 15Harinder Singh v. Karna 16Chief Information Comm P performance of an act in a Court or offic day, then according to Section 10 of the ct should be considered to have been e on the next day on which the Court or o ion flowing from the expression 'immed f the PMLA has to be given meaning de anner in which arrest order along with ot the Adjudicating Authority in accordanc of the Rules provides the manner of ter envelope along with an acknowledgem e said Rules. The outer envelope is then ess of the Adjudicating Authority has to envelope. In terms of Rule 4 of the of the Adjudicating Authority, or in hi is required on the slip in Form II, which . Further, it is well settled that when the done in a particular manner it can be don e, there is no delay in forwarding a copy the material to the Adjudicating Authority he aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said legal. Under the circumstances, I am of 23 as well as BAIL APPLN 2356/202 e accordingly dismissed. ail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271 missioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 ce, and that period e General Clauses done within that office is open.15 diately' occurring epending upon the ther material is to ce with the rules. placing a sealed ment slip in Form n to be sealed and be mentioned on e said Rules, an is absence, of the h is possible only e statute provides ne in that manner y of the Order of y. d that the arrest of the view that the 23, deserve to be

¶63It is made cl the same were not

¶64The present applications, if any

¶65Order dasti

¶66Order be up JANUARY 08, 20 dss /N.S.ASWAL/MK P lear that the merits of the case have not b urged either in the petition or in the bail t petition and the bail application, alo y, stand disposed of. under the signatures of the Court Master. loaded on the website of this Court. VIKAS K been considered as application. ong with pending .

S MAHAJAN, J.

* IN THE H + BAIL APP 18543/2023 NEERAJ SI DIRECTOR + CRL.M.C. 16660/2023 NEERAJ SI P HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW Reserve Pronounce PLN. 2356/2023, CRL.M.(BAIL) 996/2 & CRL.M.A. 18544/2023 INGAL .. Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, S Abhishek Menu Advocate, Mr. Vi Advocate with Ms Gawai, Mr. Ujjw Shambhavi Kashyap Mr. Avishkar Sing Singh and Mr. V. Wa versus RATE OF ENFORCEMENT .. Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossai with Mr. Vivek Baibhav, Ms. Mani Pranjal Tripathi, Adv Kumar, AD-ED a Sinha, AEO-ED. 4376/2023, CRL.M.A. 16658/2023 INGAL .. Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, S Abhishek Menu Advocate, Mr. Vi Advocate with Ms Gawai, Mr. Ujjw Shambhavi Kashyap W DELHI ed on: 21.12.2023 ed on: 08.01.2024 2023, CRL.M.A. ... Petitioner r. Advocate, Dr. Singhvi, Sr. ikas Pahwa, Sr. s. Ranjana Roy wal Jain, Ms. p, Mr. Adit Pujari, ghvi, Mr. Garnil adhwa, Advs. ... Respondent n, Spl. Counsel Gurnani, Mr. isha Dubey, Ms. vocates, Mr. Anuj and Mr. Sanket & CRL.M.A. ... Petitioner r. Advocate, Dr. Singhvi, Sr. ikas Pahwa, Sr. s. Ranjana Roy wal Jain, Ms. p, Mr. Adit Pujari, DIRECTOR CORAM: HON'BLE VIKAS MAHAJA 1. The issue in therefore, they are 2. CRL.M.C. 4 following relief: "(i) Decla violat Cr.PC (ii) Decla