CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3931 OF 2016

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a former PWD Minister of Maharashtra, filed a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging his arrest and subsequent detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The arrest occurred on 14 March 2016 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following registration of Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) and earlier FIRs by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleging corruption and money laundering in connection with the Maharashtra Sadan project. The petitioner contended that his arrest was illegal as it lacked authorization from the Central Government, the grounds of arrest were not communicated, he was not produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, and the ED did not maintain a case diary as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also argued that the PMLA offence was treated as cognizable without proper basis. The Special Court for PML took cognizance of the complaint on 27 April 2016 and remanded the petitioner initially to ED custody and later to judicial custody. The petitioner's bail application filed on 3 May 2016 was pending. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 5 December 2016, with the final decision pronounced on 14 December 2016. The excerpt does not include the court's analysis or final order, so the decision and ratio decidendi are not mentioned.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arrest and remand of the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were illegal, void ab initio, and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 50

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3931 of 2016

2016-12-14

Ranjit More, Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi

2016:BHC-AS:30766-DB

Vikram Chaudhary, Sujay Kantawala, Sajal Yadav, Shalabh Krishnan Saxena, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Anil C. Singh, Purnima Kantharia, H.S. Venegaonkar, Samar Kachwala, Sanyat Lodha, Chanan Parwani, Indrayani Deshmukh, Yash Momaya, Satya Prakash Singh, S.K. Shinde, J.P. Yagnik, Yeshwant Shenoy, G.L. Thonge

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal

Union of India, Sanjay V. Kinjawadekar, Directorate of Enforcement, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus for release from custody, challenging the legality of arrest and remand under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Remedy Sought

Forthwith release of the petitioner from custody by setting aside the arrest order dated 14 March 2016 and consequent remand orders as illegal, without jurisdiction, and void ab initio.

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged that the arrest lacked authorization from the Central Government, grounds of arrest were not communicated, he was not produced before the court within twenty-four hours, and there was non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Previous Decisions

The Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering, Mumbai, had remanded the petitioner first to Enforcement Directorate custody and then to judicial custody. The Special Court took cognizance of the PMLA complaint on 27 April 2016. The petitioner's bail application was pending.

Issues

Whether the arrest of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate without prior authorization from the Central Government was illegal and void ab initio. Whether the non-communication of grounds of arrest renders the arrest and subsequent detention violative of Article 22 of the Constitution. Whether the offence under the PML Act is cognizable and non-bailable, and whether the arrest procedure followed was in accordance with law. Whether the Special Court properly exercised its jurisdiction in remanding the petitioner without verifying the legality of arrest and the existence of grounds. Whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable to challenge the legality of arrest and detention in respect of a PMLA offence.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the arrest order dated 14 March 2016 was illegal for lack of authorization under PMLA, non-communication of grounds of arrest, production before the Special Court beyond 24 hours, non-production of case diary, and that the offence under PMLA was not cognizable.

Judgment Excerpts

However, the Petitioner had been restrained from moving out of the office, even for taking lunch, and was, thus, illegally taken in custody by restraining his movements. It is his further contention that to show that his arrest was in consonance with Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, in the impugned arrest order dated 14th March 2016, it was stated that the arrest of the Petitioner was made at 22:05 hours. However, no authorization issued by the Central Government in the name of Respondent No.2 for effecting the arrest of the Petitioner was shown, nor the written communication of the grounds of arrest was made available to him. On 15th March 2016, Petitioner was produced before the Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering at Mumbai at about 16:30 hours i.e. beyond the period of twenty-four hours.

Procedural History

1. On 18 December 2014, the Division Bench directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in PIL No.23/2014. 2. On 29 April 2015, the Court clarified that ACB and ED could register FIRs without waiting for court orders. 3. On 8 June 2015, ACB registered FIR No.32/2015. 4. On 11 June 2015, ACB registered FIR No.35/2015. 5. On 17 June 2015, ECIR No. MBZO/07/2015 was registered. 6. On 14 March 2016, petitioner was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. 7. On 15 March 2016, petitioner was produced before the Special Court and remanded to ED custody. 8. On 17 March 2016, petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. 9. On 30 March 2016, Criminal Complaint No.2/2016 was filed. 10. On 27 April 2016, the Special Court took cognizance of the complaint. 11. On 3 May 2016, petitioner moved a bail application. 12. The present writ petition was filed and heard, with judgment pronounced on 14 December 2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 14, 21, 22, 226, 227
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2)
  • Indian Penal Code: Sections 109, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 477A, 34, 120B
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Sections 3, 4, 5(1)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 167, 172
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Land Tribunal Order in Tenancy Dispute — Petitioner Failed to Prove Tenancy Rights Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the claimant did not...
Related Judgement
High Court CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3931 OF 2016