CASE DETAILS v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Held: There is no valid reason as to why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception – There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle – Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorized offi cer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard – Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorized offi cer in terms of s.19(1) of the Act of 2002, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorized offi cer – Secondly, conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the Court u/s.

45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. [Paras 32, 33] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Non-compliance of mandate under Art.22 of Constitution and s.19 of the 2002 Act – Arbitrary exercise of power by ED: Held: In the case on hand, the admitted position is that the ED’s Investigating Offi cer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants – As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfi l compliance with the mandate of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution and s.19(1) of the Act of 2002, there is no hesitation in holding that their arrest PANKAJ BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 717 was not in keeping with the provisions of s.19(1) of the Act of 2002 – Further, the clandestine conduct of the ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the fi rst ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power – In eff ect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained. [Para 35] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES