Case Law Details
V. Senthil Balaji Vs State Represented By Deputy Director And Ors (Supreme Court Judgment)
In the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. State Represented By Deputy Director and Others, the Supreme Court of India provided a detailed interpretation and analysis of various legal provisions related to the arrest, custody, and investigation of individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The judgment discusses the arguments presented by both the appellant and the respondents and provides a nuanced understanding of the interplay between different legal provisions. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the key arguments, submissions, and conclusions presented in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Background and Context: The case revolved around the arrest and custody of V. Senthil Balaji under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest and subsequent custody. The appellant’s arguments were primarily centered around the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973, which deals with the custody of a person during an investigation.
Submissions of the Appellant: The appellant’s arguments were presented by learned Senior Advocates Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri Mukul Rohatgi. Their submissions can be summarized as follows:
i. The appellant argued that there is no power vested under the PMLA, 2002 to seek custody in favor of an authorized officer. Such an authorized officer is not a police officer, and therefore, Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 is not applicable to them.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
