Former DMK Functionary Jaffer Sadiq Approaches Madras High Court Challenging Arrest In PMLA Case

When the matter was taken up by a bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, the bench asked the Registry to number Jaffer's quashing petition and list it in due course.

The Narcotics Control Bureau arrested Sadiq on March 9^th, 2024 for alleged offences under Section 9A, 25A, 29 of the NDPS Act and has been in judicial custody for the past 110 days. He informed the court that the NCB had filed a chargesheet which has been numbered and taken on the file of Special Judge (NDPS Act), Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

Since the offences under Sections 25A and 29 are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR and preferred an application before the Special Judge to permit the department to interrogate Sadiq and other accused which was allowed.

In his plea, Sadiq submitted that he was not connected to the predicate offence or the offence under PMLA. He informed the court that the allegation of his number being saved as “Bezoz” in the mobile phone of one of the accused was untrue as the number was neither owned by him nor registered under his name.

Sadiq submitted 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.

He submitted that though the department alleged that there were statements from persons confirming Sadiq's involvement, these statements were later retracted and the persons had made it clear that the earlier statement was obtained under threat and coercion.

Sadiq also 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.