In a recent case, the Delhi High Court refused to release Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi from arrest on a Money laundering Offence under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ). The Court found that the arrest was made after proper compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA.
The Directorate of Enforcement searched the official residence of Sh. Arvind Kejriwal, the petitioner who is the Chief Minister of the State of Delhi. After the search, he was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement regarding his involvement in the offence of money laundering about Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022. After arrest, the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge ( PC Act ) CBI-09 ( MP/MLA Cases ), Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi ( ‘Special Court’ ), where the Directorate of Enforcement had sought his custody for interrogation which was granted vide order dated 22.03.2024.
The Special Court was pleased to further extend the remand of the petitioner to the custody of the respondent vide another order. The present petition came up for hearing before the Court on 27.03.2024 when the petitioner was running in the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement by judicial order.
The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) challenges the arrest of the petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement on the ground that the arrest was in violation of Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( ‘PMLA’ ) and it has been prayed that the arrest order dated 21.03.2024 and the proceedings pursuant thereto be declared illegal, non-est, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Sh. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the timing of the arrest of the petitioner i.e., Sh. Arvind Kejriwal who is the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi, straightaway affects ‘the level playing field’ in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024. Sh. Singhvi further contended that a level playing field is just not a phrase of words but rather it has three vital components. Firstly, it is part of ‘free and fair elections’, secondly ‘elections’ are part of ‘democracy’ and thirdly ‘democracy’ in turn is a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution of India.
Sh. Singhvi, Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Directorate of Enforcement had sent nine (09) summons to the petitioner herein under Section 50 of the PMLA over a protracted period of 6 months. The first summon was sent on 30.10.2024 and the last summon was sent on 16.03.2024. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition before the Court and that the Division bench did not grant an ad-interim order staying all the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA sent by the Directorate of Enforcement to the petitioner about the said ECIR, on 21.03.2024.
However, the Directorate of Enforcement, on the very same day had arrested the petitioner at about 09:05 PM under Section 19 of PMLA without any justification. Sh argued it. Singhvi that at the stage of issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA, there existed no formal document indicative of the likelihood of involvement of the petitioner herein as an accused of the offence of money laundering as held in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 2022.
It was contended that it is only the information and evidence collected during the inquiry under Section 50 of PMLA, which may disclose the commission of the offence of money laundering and the involvement of the person so summoned under Section 50 of PMLA. In the present case, it is argued that the Directorate of Enforcement did not even collect any evidence at the stage of issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA which could have necessitated a formal accusation against the petitioner, let alone an arrest under Section 19 of PMLA.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the statements that are being relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement are of negligible evidentiary value to justify an arrest of the Sitting Chief Minister of the Capital of India under Section 19 of PMLA, as it is trite law that statements of co-accused cannot be relied upon against Sh. Kejriwal the same cannot be a starting point for ascertainment of the guilt of an accused.
Sh. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General ( ‘ASG’ ) appearing on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement has raised certain preliminary objections about the writ petition in question. It was argued that all the procedural requirements of Section 19(1) and 19(2) of PMLA as well as Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India have been complied with by the Directorate of Enforcement. It is argued that the petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2024 at 09:05 PM, and the grounds for his arrest were informed and furnished to him in writing. It was also submitted that in compliance with Section 19(2) of PMLA, the material as required was duly forwarded to the adjudicating authority of PMLA following due procedure as prescribed under law vide letter dated 22.03.2024, and an acknowledgement in this regard was also received.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the arrest of petitioner Sh. Arvind Kejriwal was not in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) in respect of Section 19 of PMLA. Since the arrest of the petitioner and the impugned remand order are held valid, the prayer-seeking release of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected.
The Court dismissed the petition along with pending applications.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
