PMLA Accused Need Not Be Produced Before Special Court Within 24 Hours If Arrested From Judicial Custody: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that requirements under the Act had been met when Sadiq, who was already in judicial custody, was formally arrested. Thus, the court said that the petition was devoid of merits and dismissed the same.

“...if a person is already in judicial custody in connection with another case, can be formally arrested in respect of investigation of the subsequent case. Therefore, the requirements of Section 19(3) of the provisions of PMLA is complied with and thus, there is no violation,” the court said.

The Narcotics Control Bureau arrested Sadiq on March 9^th, 2024 for alleged offences under Section 9A, 25A, 29 of the NDPS Act. Since the offenses under Sections 25A and 29 are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR.

Sadiq alleged that though he was arrested on 26^th June 2024, the department had not taken any steps to produce him before the jurisdictional court or any other Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. He argued that this failure would violate the procedures of arrest laid down under Section 19(3) of the PMLA along with Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Sections 57 and 167(2) of the CrPC.

He added that since the arrest had become illegal, the department secured a PT warrant under Section 267 CrPC in an attempt to make the arrest legal. Sadiq pointed out that omission on the department's part has affected his rights guaranteed by the law. He further submitted that since the arrest had become illegal, the arrest order was liable to be quashed and the subsequent PT Warrant liable to be cancelled.

In his petition, Sadiq had informed the court that he was politically reputed and was not involved in similar offences. He added that the Department had employed third-degree treatment to one of the co-accused and forced out a confession to make out a case which was otherwise not made out under the Law. He submitted that this conduct of the officers clearly showed that they would resort to any method to strengthen their case with the least regard to justice and laws in force.

The ED, on the other hand, opposed the plea and said that the submissions made by Sadiq were incorrect. It was also submitted that the on the date of arrest, Sadiq was already lodged in Tihar jail and since he was found guilty of offences under the PMLA, a formal arrest was made by invoking Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

The ED also pointed to the order made by the Special Judge in Chennai in which the judge had noted that Sadiq had not come into the physical custody of the ED and thus it was not necessary to produce him before the Magistrate or any other nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of formal arrest. The special judge had also noted that non-production of the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours of formal arrest would not be a violation of either Section 19 of the PMLA or Section 167 of the CrPC.

Thus, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Senthil Balaji's case and the order of a division bench of Madurai bench of Madras High Court, the court noted that there was no violation and the requirements of the section had been complied with.

Counsel for the Petitiorequirementsner: Mr.Abdulkumar Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for Mr.K.M.Kalicharan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor (for ED)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 351

Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq v The Assistant Director

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.16117 of 2024