Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Agarwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 4 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 793 of 2024
Amit Kumar Agarwal, aged about 53 years, son of Sri Vijay Kumar Agarwal,
resident of HB-165, Salt Lake, Sector-3, P.O. - Vidhan Nagar, P.S.-Vidhan Nagar
South, District-24 Parganas North, ( West Bengal) --- --- Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Pee Pee Compound,
Kaushalya Chambers-II, Ranchi Sub Zonal Office, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Hindpidhi,
District- Ranchi --- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Sr. Advocate (through V.C)
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate
Md. Imran Beig, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate (for ED)
Order No.0 / Dated 4th October, 2024
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It appears that the instant writ petition has been
assigned to the D.B.-II by the administrative order of Hon'ble the
Chief Justice, therefore, this matter has been listed today before this
Court.
2. The writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(a) to read down and/or read into, consider, determine and expound
the scope and ambit of Section 19 and Section 50 of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in consonance with the law
declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia, in State of
Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, reported in AIR 1951 SC
157, Harkishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in
1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 and Vijay Madanlal Chowdhury vs
Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 929 and declare that
:-
(i) Power to arrest prescribed in Section 19 of the PMLA
cannot be exercised without issuing summon under Section 50
PMLA save in case of arrest effected in course of search and
seizure under Section 17 and search of persons under Section
18;
(ii) Summons issued under Section 50(2) PMLA must set out
the brief particulars of the predicate offence and information
which is required by the authorised person issuing the
Summons;
(iii) Summons issued under Section 50 (2) PMLA must record
the reasons why the authorised person considers necessary
the attendance of the person to whom Summons are issued.
(b) holding and declaring, with all consequences, the
detention/arrest of the petitioner since 7.6.2023 and remanded since
9.6.2023 (vide Annexure-4) in ECIR Case No.01/2023 [arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022] as void-ab-initio, illegal
and unconstitutional as being in gross violation of his fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 & 22 of the Constitution of
India;
(c) quashing/setting aside of, with all consequences, the remand
order dated 9.6.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Court of
Sri Dinesh Rai, Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR Case
No.01/2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022];
(d) directing for immediate release of the petitioner from custody in
ECIR Case No. 01/2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated
21.10.2022];
presently pending learned Court of Sri Yogesh Kumar,
Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, CBI-cum-
Special Judge under PMLA at Ranchi for offence under section 3
read with section 70 and punishable under section 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel has appeared through
Video Conferencing to represent the petitioner. He has referred page
53 of the pleadings, which is the arrest order dated 07.06.2023 passed
by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India at Ranchi,
annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which petitioner has
been arrested in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(1) of
the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, 2002.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vrs. Union of
India and others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] and in the case of Prabir
Purkayastha Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254 and
submitted that the arrest order is contrary to the provision of Section
19(1) of the Act of 2002, as has been settled by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases.
5. However, in course of argument, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he is confining the
prayer with respect to order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned
Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR 01/2023 only.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel representing the
respondent Enforcement Directorate prays for 4 weeks' time to seek
instruction and file affidavit in the matter since in the intervening
period two consecutive holidays are falling.
7. As such, with consent of both the parties, list this case on 11 th
November 2024.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
