PMLA accused don’t have to be produced before Magistrate in 24 hours if arrested from judicial custody: Madras High Court

Case Brief: PMLA accused don’t have to be produced before Magistrate in 24 hours if arrested from judicial custody: Madras High Court

Case Name: Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director

Court: Madras High Court

Date of Judgment: 30.08.2024

By- Aakanksha Bhatia

 

Facts:

  • The petitioner was arrested on June 26, 2024, by the Enforcement Directorate.
  • The arrest was made in connection with File No.ECIR/CEZO-1/09/2024, pursuant to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
  • At the time of his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in Jail No.4, Tihar Jail, Delhi, for a separate case (S.C.No.150/2024) filed by the NCB, New Delhi.
  • The Enforcement Directorate issued a Production Warrant to have the petitioner brought before the Special Court in Chennai on July 2, 2024.
  • Due to time constraints in obtaining permission from the relevant authorities in Delhi, the Tihar Jail authorities could not produce the petitioner before the Chennai court on July 2, 2024.
  • A fresh Production Warrant was issued, and the petitioner was ultimately produced before the Special Court in Chennai on July 15, 2024.
  • The petitioner filed a criminal original petition seeking to quash the arrest order, alleging a violation of Section 19(3) of the PMLA because he was not produced before the Special Court within 24 hours of his arrest.

Issues:

Whether the arrest order issued against the petitioner violated Section 19(3) of the PMLA due to the petitioner not being produced before the Special Court within 24 hours of his arrest, considering he was already in judicial custody for a separate case at the time of arrest.

Judgment:

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the petitioner’s claim and upheld the validity of the arrest order.

Legal Analysis:

  • Section 19(3) of the PMLA mandates that any person arrested under the Act must be produced before a Special Court within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time.
  • The petitioner argued that the 24-hour period under Section 19(3) began at the moment of his formal arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, regardless of his existing judicial custody in another case.
  • The respondent (Enforcement Directorate) argued that since the petitioner was already in judicial custody, physically producing him before the Special Court within 24 hours was not required. They relied on the fact that Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows for judicial custody to be extended beyond 24 hours in certain situations.
  • The Hon’ble Court relied on several precedents to support its decision:
  • Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others This case reiterated the importance of Section 19 of the PMLA and the need for timely production before a Magistrate.
  • Senthil Balaji Vs. State Represented by Deputy Director and Others – The Supreme Court clarified the interplay between Section 19 of the PMLA and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the Magistrate’s role in ensuring compliance with the PMLA’s safeguards, particularly when an accused is already in custody. However, the court also highlighted that these safeguards are applicable only when an accused is in the physical custody of the arresting authority.
  • State of Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, City Crime Branch, Trichy vs. K.N.Nehru and Others – This Madras High Court case established that if an accused is already in judicial custody, a formal arrest for a separate case can be made in prison. The Court further clarified that the 24-hour production requirement under Section 19(3) of the PMLA is only applicable when the accused is in the “physical custody” of the arresting authority.
  • The Court determined that because PMLA is a special law, its provisions take precedence over any conflicting provisions of the general law (Code of Criminal Procedure).

Conclusion:

  • The Madras High Court ultimately held that the 24-hour rule under Section 19(3) of the PMLA does not apply when the accused is already in judicial custody for a separate matter.
  • The Court determined that the formal arrest of the petitioner while in judicial custody was valid, and the subsequent delay in producing him before the Special Court did not invalidate the arrest order, as he was not in the physical custody of the Enforcement Directorate.
  • The Court dismissed the petition, finding no violation of the petitioner’s rights under the PMLA.

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *