Poonam Malik v. Union Of India & Ors.

1. There are two prayers in this petition. The first seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by alleging that the Petitioner's husband, Ranjit Malik, was taken away by the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) (Respondent No. 2) without complying with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). In particular, it is stated that the Petitioner's husband was not informed of the grounds of his arrest as mandated by this court in its decision in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit v. Union of India, 2018 (1) JCC 506.

2. The record has been produced by learned counsel for the DoE who appears on advance notice. It reveals an endorsement by the Petitioner's husband on the arrest memo to the effect that he has been informed of the grounds of his arrest. This Court, in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit v. Union of India (supra), has taken the view that this may not be in strict compliance with the requirement under Section 19 PMLA and that the grounds of arrest require to be communicated in writing to the person arrested. In taking that view, this Court disagreed with the contrary view taken earlier by another Division Bench of this Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi Petitioner v. Uoi & Ors. S (decision dated 1 December 2017 in W.P.(Crl.) 2465/2017). Consequently, this question along with certain others was referred to a larger Bench of three judges for consideration.

3. The above decision in Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit v. Union of India (supra) was challenged by the DoE before the Supreme Court of India which by its order dated 15 March 2018 in Special Leave Petition (Crl) [Diary No. 9365] of 2018 transferred the writ petition pending before this Court to itself. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court for consideration.

4. In the circumstances, the legal position as on date is governed by the decision of this court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi Petitioner v. Uoi & Ors. S (supra). It cannot therefore be held that the DoE has not complied with the requirements of the law. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain ‘Prayer A’ made in the present petition. It shall however be open to the Petitioner to urge any other ground concerning the legality of the arrest of the Petitioner's husband arrest before the Roster Bench which will examined prayer B.

5. ‘Prayer B’ of the petition challenges the validity of the order dated 6 August 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (PMLA), New Delhi whereby the custody of the Petitioner's husband has been extended by seven more days. To consider that prayer, the present petition be renumbered as a Criminal Revision Petition and be listed before the Roster Bench on 13 August 2018.