PMLA | ED's Delay In Forwarding Arrest Order To Adjudicating Authority Doesn't Automatically Vitiate Arrest : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that upon arrest in an alleged money laundering offence, the failure of the arresting officer to forward the arrest order and related materials to the adjudicating authority, simultaneously with the arrest, would not by itself render the arrest illegal when there exists necessary reason justifying the delay.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said that when the core safeguard against the arbitrary arrest was complied with, such as the authorised officer had material in possession, reasons to believe were recorded in writing, grounds of arrest were furnished, and the Appellant was produced before the competent court within 24 hours, then mere delay in compliance with Section 19(2) pales into insignificance.

The Court explained that since Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act mandates the arresting officer to 'immediately' forward a copy of the arrest order and the material in their possession to the Adjudicating Authority, hence, in the absence of a timeline mentioned, the word “immediately” does not "mean within 24 hours or within a set time limit, it means that the material has to be transferred expeditiously and simultaneously."

“There is no timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. It has to be done “immediately”.”, the Court said, emphasizing that “when the records of the case run into thousands of pages, it is natural for the arresting officer to require some time to forward the same.”

The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court came while allowing a plea filed against the Calcutta High Court's decision to deny bail to the Appellant-accused in a PMLA case.

The accused claimed his arrest to be illegal because of non-compliance with Section 19(2) of the Act. According to him, the arrest order and material with the arresting officer were forwarded to the adjudicating authority five days after his arrest. He stressed that the word 'immediately' employed in the Act, must be interpreted to mean that the forwarding should take place simultaneously with the arrest.

Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar took note of the practical considerations faced by the agency in collecting, assimilating, and compiling evidence to be forwarded, which sometimes runs into hundreds of pages.

“When an investigating agency is collecting, assimilating, and compiling evidence to be forwarded, there can be administrative requirements which need to be fulfilled and which might require a few days of time to be adhered to. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the delay of five days will jeopardise the state of arrest itself.”, the Court said.

The Court added that ideally the forward should be simultaneous with the arrest; any delay for a necessary reason “cannot be said to be falling foul of Section 19(2) of the Act”.

Bail granted on grounds of violation of the right to a speedy trial 

Noting that the case involved a total of 97 accused persons, 48 prosecution witnesses and approximately 15,000 pages of relied-upon documents, while the investigation is stated to be still pending the other accused persons qua, the Court deemed it fit to grant bail to the appellant-accused upon finding that he has been in custody for over 20 months for an offence which has a punishment period of 7 years, and the investigation is complete against him.

“No purpose will be served by keeping the accused person behind bars now.”, the Court said, relying on Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 563, where it was held that investigating agencies cannot oppose bail citing the seriousness of the offence if they cannot ensure a speedy trial.

“Prolonged incarceration, if allowed to continue, will set at naught the constitutional safeguards extended to the accused person.”, the Court said.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ranjita Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Ankur Chawla, Adv. Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Adv. Ms. Devna Soni, Adv. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Adv. Mr. C B Bansal, Adv. Ms. Raymon Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Tandon, Adv. Mr. Atif Akhtar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Garg, Adv. Ms. Annada Dubey, Adv. Mr. Amir Khan, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Janhavi Negi, Adv. Ms. Shagufa Salim, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.