Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji and his wife Megala against a Madras High Court order upholding his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case. The top court also allowed ED to take Balaji into custody for five days till August 12.
A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh also directed the registry to place before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to decide the larger issue of whether the 15-day custody period should be only within the first 15 days of remand or spanning the entire period of investigation, 60 or 90 days as the case may be, as a whole.
The court said the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable against the arrest and the order of remand cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus petition.
Police custody includes all probe agencies, says SC, upholds HC order
“Any ‘custody’ under Section 167 of CrPC would not only include police custody but also of other investigating agencies,” the bench said.
Section 167 (2) empowers a magistrate to authorise the detention of an accused in police custody beyond the period of 15 days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so.
Calling the section a “bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act,” the court in its 87-page verdict authored by Justice Sundresh also said curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, the act of God, an order of the court not being the handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction.
Saying that no writ of habeas corpus would apply after forwarding an arrestee to the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 19(3) of PMLA, the court said, “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 officer, 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.
We find adequate compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, which contemplates a rigorous procedure before making an arrest. The learned Principal Sessions Judge did take note of the said fact by passing a reasoned order. The appellant was accordingly produced before the court and while he was in its custody, a judicial remand was made. As it is a reasoned and speaking order, the appellant ought to have questioned it before the appropriate forum.
We are only concerned with the remand in favour of the respondents. Therefore, even on that ground, we do hold that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable as the arrest and custody have already been upheld by way of rejection of the bail application,” the court said. Additionally, the court also ruled that section 41A of CrPC which mandates police officers to issue a notice of appearance to a person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognisable offence does not apply to an arrest made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji and his wife Megala against a Madras High Court order upholding his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case. The top court also allowed ED to take Balaji into custody for five days till August 12.
A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh also directed the registry to place before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to decide the larger issue of whether the 15-day custody period should be only within the first 15 days of remand or spanning the entire period of investigation, 60 or 90 days as the case may be, as a whole.
The court said the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable against the arrest and the order of remand cannot be challenged in a habeas corpus petition. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Police custody includes all probe agencies, says SC, upholds HC order
“Any ‘custody’ under Section 167 of CrPC would not only include police custody but also of other investigating agencies,” the bench said.
Section 167 (2) empowers a magistrate to authorise the detention of an accused in police custody beyond the period of 15 days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so.
Calling the section a “bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act,” the court in its 87-page verdict authored by Justice Sundresh also said curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, the act of God, an order of the court not being the handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction.
Saying that no writ of habeas corpus would apply after forwarding an arrestee to the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 19(3) of PMLA, the court said, “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 officer, 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.
We find adequate compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, which contemplates a rigorous procedure before making an arrest. The learned Principal Sessions Judge did take note of the said fact by passing a reasoned order. The appellant was accordingly produced before the court and while he was in its custody, a judicial remand was made. As it is a reasoned and speaking order, the appellant ought to have questioned it before the appropriate forum.
We are only concerned with the remand in favour of the respondents. Therefore, even on that ground, we do hold that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable as the arrest and custody have already been upheld by way of rejection of the bail application,” the court said. Additionally, the court also ruled that section 41A of CrPC which mandates police officers to issue a notice of appearance to a person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognisable offence does not apply to an arrest made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
