LI Network
Published on: December 17, 2023 at 00:17 IST
The Supreme Court, in the case of RK Arora vs Director of Enforcement, clarified that complying with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is achieved if a person arrested for money laundering is provided with written information about the grounds of arrest within 24 hours of the arrest.
The ruling emphasized that the expression “as soon as may be” in Section 19 of the PMLA should be interpreted to mean “as early as possible” or within a “reasonably convenient” period, specifying 24 hours.
Section 19 of the PMLA Act outlines safeguards for authorized officers during arrests under anti-money laundering laws, requiring them to inform the arrested individual of the grounds for arrest “as soon as may be.”
The Court, consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, held that the duty to inform the arrestee about the grounds of arrest should be fulfilled within 24 hours of the arrest.
The judgment clarified that the term “as soon as may be” implies “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” time.
The Court cited the duty imposed on the officer to provide a copy of the arrest order to the Adjudicating Authority and take the arrested person to court within 24 hours.
It affirmed that informing the arrestee orally about the grounds at the time of arrest, coupled with furnishing a written communication within 24 hours, fulfills the requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
In the specific case, the appellant arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) received a document containing the grounds of arrest during the arrest, and after endorsing and signing it, the document was taken back without providing a copy to the appellant at that moment. The legal question addressed was whether this action rendered the arrest illegal.
The Court concluded that oral communication about the grounds at the time of arrest, coupled with a written communication within 24 hours, was sufficient compliance.
The judgment aligned with the precedent set in the Vijay Madanlal case, reinforcing that informing the arrested person about the grounds of arrest satisfies the legal requirements.
The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming that the appellant had been duly informed about the reasons for his arrest.