Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Aug 7-13]

Judgments/OrdersCentral Civil Service Rules | Retired Employee Can Be Appointed As Inquiry Authority In Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme CourtCase title: Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra SethyCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant.Habeas Corpus Writ Not Maintainable Against ED Alleging Illegal Arrest; Plea To Be Raised Before Magistrate: Supreme CourtCase Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTORCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611The Supreme Court on Monday while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, held that a writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable on allegation of illegal arrest by the ED. The Apex Court clarified that the plea regarding illegal arrest is to be made before concerned the Magistrate, since custody becomes judicial.Section 41A CrPC Not Applicable To Arrest Made Under PMLA: Supreme CourtCase Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTORCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611The Supreme Court on Monday while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, held that Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Notice of appearance before police officer) would not apply to an arrest made under the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002.A division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh observed that when the PMLA itself contains a comprehensive procedure for summons, searches, and seizures, applying Section 41A of the CrPC which requires serving of notice by Police prior to arrest would defeat the purpose of the legislationCustody' Under Section 167 CrPC Includes Custody Of Other Investigating Agencies Such As ED, Not Just Police: Supreme CourtCase Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTORCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611The Supreme Court on Monday held that ‘custody' under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes custody of other investigating agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and not just the police alone.While authorizing the detention of an accused, the Magistrate has got a very wide discretion, the Court observed. Referring to Section 167(2) the Court said:“The words “such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit” would reiterate the extent of discretion available to him. It is for the Magistrate concerned to decide the question of custody, either be it judicial or to an investigating agency or to any other entity in a given case.Violation Of Section 19 PMLA Will Vitiate Arrest; Magistrate Should Ensure That ED Followed Arrest Procedure: Supreme CourtCase Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTORCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611The Supreme Court on Monday held that any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 (Power To Arrest) of the Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002, would vitiate the very arrest itself.A division bench of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case, observed that:“Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such non-compliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002.”15 Days Police Custody Meant To Be Applied To Entire Period Of Investigation As A Whole: Supreme Court Doubts 1992 PrecedentCase Title: V. SENTHIL BALAJI v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTORCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611In the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court has questioned the interpretation given by the 1992 judgment in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni that the police or investigating agency can't seek custody of the accused after the first 15 days from the arrest.A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while dismissing Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife's plea against custody by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), held that the prescribed 15-day-period of police custody can be an aggregate of shorter periods of custody sought over the entire period of investigation lasting 60 or 90 days, as a whole. Therefore, the bench has referred Anupam Kulkarni (1992) to a larger bench for reconsideration.S 482 CrPC - High Court Can Try To Read In Between The Lines While Considering Plea To Quash FIR: Supreme CourtCase title: Mahmood Ali v. State of UPCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while considering a petition seeking quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, is empowered to take into account the overall...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [Aug 7-13]

Suraj Kumar

Tags