Under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 it is necessary that a copy of the written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person without exception. Otherwise, the arrest would be unlawful

The chronology of events speaks volumes and reflects rather poorly, if not negatively, on the Directorate of Enforcement (for brevity, ‘the ED’) style of functioning. Being a premier investigating agency, charged with the onerous responsibility of curbing the debilitating economic offence of money laundering in our country, every action of the ED in the course of such exercise is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action.

The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness. In the case on hand, the facts demonstrate that the ED failed to discharge its functions and exercise its powers as per these parameters.

To give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi vs. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12108 and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs. Union of India and others 2017 Cri LJ (NOC 301) 89 = 2017 (1) AIR Bom R (Cri) 929, which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law.

In the case on hand, the admitted position is that the ED’s Investigating Officer 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 fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002.

Further, as already noted supra, 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 first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained.