No violation of Section 19 PMLA if ED informs accused about grounds of arrest within 24 hours: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that if a person arrested for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is informed about the grounds of his arrest in writing within 24 hours of the arrest, that would satisfy the requirements under Section 19 of PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India [RK Arora vs Director of Enforcement]..Section 19 of the PMLA Act provides for inbuilt safeguards to be adhered to by authorized officers at the time of making arrests under the anti-money laundering law. Notably, this provision requires such officers to inform the arrested person of the grounds for his arrest "as soon as may be."Further, Article 22(1) of the Constitution says that a person arrested shall not be detained in custody without being informed of his grounds of arrest. .The Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the expression "as soon as may be" in Section 19 of the PMLA can be read to mean "as early as possible" or "within a reasonably convenient" period of time. Pertinently, the Court added that a "reasonably convenient" or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrested person about the grounds of his arrest would be within twenty-four hours of the arrest."The expression 'as soon as may be' contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- 'as early as possible without avoidable delay' or 'within reasonably convenient' or 'reasonably requisite' period of time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest," the judgment said..In this case, the appellant who was arrested by the ED was handed over a document containing the grounds of his arrest when he was arrested. He also signed below the said grounds of arrest after making an endorsement which said, “I have been informed and have also read the above-mentioned grounds of arrest."The legal question before the Court was whether the action of ED in handing over the document with the grounds of arrest to the arrestee and then taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature, but without furnishing a copy of the same to the arrestee at the time of arrest, would render the arrest illegal. .The Court has held that it is sufficient if the person arrested is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest within 24 hours of his arrest."The person asserted, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India," the judgment stated. .The bench opined that this would also be in line with the three-judge Supreme Court judgment in the Vijay Madanlal case, which had ruled that the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is sufficient compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. .The Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal before it, reasoning that the arrested appellant was duly informed of why he was being arrested..[Read Judgment]