New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji challenging his arrest and upheld his custody given to the ED in a money laundering case. It ruled that the agency is empowered to seek custody of an accused and not bound to follow Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code which mandates that notice be served to the accused for appearance before arrest.
Observing that 15-day custody for interrogation should be the “actual” custody and time spent in medical treatment during that period be excluded, a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh granted Balaji’s custody to the ED till August 12. Though the minister pleaded that he should be allowed to be treated by his doctor in custody, the court did not pass any order. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta assured that his medical needs would be taken care of by the agency.
Rejecting the plea of Balaji that ED officers like officials of customs department can arrest but cannot seek custody of the accused for interrogation, the bench said, “That does not mean that there is no power under the PMLA, 2002 read with the Cr PC to the Authorised Officer to seek custody. There is a fallacy in the said argument. One cannot apply Section 167 (2) of the Cr PC in piecemeal. There cannot be an application of the provision only for an arrest but not for custody. Such an argument is also dangerous from the point of view of an arrestee as the benefit conferred under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr PC will not be available”.
“The PMLA, 2002 being a sui generis legislation, has its own mechanism in dealing with arrest in the light of its objectives. The concern of the PMLA is to prevent money laundering, make adequate recovery and punish the offender. That is the reason why a comprehensive procedure for summons, searches, and seizures etc, has been clearly stipulated under Chapter V of the PMLA, 2002,” the bench said.