A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed writ petition filed by Abhishek Boinpally, a Hyderabad-based beauty salon chain owner arrested in Delhi liquor policy scam and observed that there is no requirement for issuing summons to interrogate and record statement for arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Vikram Chaudhary, senior counsel along with Sumer Singh Bopparai for the accused Abhishek Boinpally has submitted that the ED moved an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to interrogate and record petitioner’s statement in PMLA case without mentioning any provision as to the maintainability thereof.
It has been submitted that the said order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to show cause in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and Audi Alteram Partem. Learned senior counsel submitted that the permission to interrogate a person in custody in another case could not have been granted in absence of any specific provision in the Cr.P.C.
Zoheb Hossain, special counsel for ED submitted that the arrest and remand of the petitioner was strictly in accordance with law. It has been submitted that ED sought permission to interrogate and record the petitioner’s statement under PMLA because the petitioner would not have been able to appear and comply with the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA being in judicial custody.
The Counsel further submitted that permission was sought from the Special Judge as the petitioner was in custody in relation to the scheduled offence. It has been submitted that the power that was exercised permitting ED to record statement was the power of remand of the court under Section 167 Cr.P.C.
The Court of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, observed that “Any summon, notice or order shall not be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason an any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, summons, order, document or other proceedings. If such notice, summons, order, documents or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.”
“The investigating agency does not need any permission from the court to arrest an accused person if the department has on the basis of material in their possession reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this act. Section 19 of the PMLA provides sufficient safeguards and I consider that there was no requirement to seek permission from the learned Special Judge to affect the arrest of the accused person” the Bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
