Tarsem Lal Vs Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India, in Tarsem Lal vs Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, addressed several procedural aspects related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court’s judgment clarifies the process for issuance of summons and warrants, the accused’s appearance before the Special Court, and the conditions for bail, particularly in cases where the accused was not arrested during the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation. The court emphasized that once a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA is filed, it is governed by Sections 200 to 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), unless there’s an inconsistency with PMLA provisions.
The court outlined the procedure for the accused’s appearance. If the accused wasn’t arrested by the ED before the complaint, the court should generally issue a summons, not a warrant, even if the accused is already on bail. Upon appearing in response to the summons, the accused is not considered to be in custody and does not need to apply for bail. However, the Special Court can require the accused to furnish a bond under Section 88 of the CrPC, which is simply an undertaking to appear in court. The court also clarified that appearing in response to a summons does not preclude the accused from seeking exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the CrPC for valid reasons.
The judgment also detailed the circumstances under which a warrant can be issued. If the accused fails to appear after being served a summons or misses subsequent court dates, the Special Court can issue a warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC. The court recommended starting with a bailable warrant and resorting to a non-bailable warrant only if the bailable warrant cannot be served. The court clarified the nature of the bond under Section 88, stating that it’s not equivalent to bail but merely an undertaking to appear. If the accused fails to appear despite furnishing such a bond, the court can issue a warrant for their arrest and production before the court under Section 89 read with Section 70 of the CrPC. The court also clarified that when dealing with an application for cancellation of a warrant, the Special Court is not considering bail, and therefore, Section 45(1) of the PMLA regarding bail conditions does not apply.
Regarding the ED’s powers, the court held that after cognizance is taken of an offense under Section 4 of the PMLA based on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b), the ED cannot arrest the accused under Section 19 of the PMLA. If the ED needs custody of the accused for further investigation after they appear in response to a summons, they must apply to the Special Court, which will decide after hearing the accused and recording reasons. The court clarified that it was dealing with situations where the accused was not arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA before the complaint was filed. The judgment concluded with specific directions for the appellants, setting aside previous orders denying anticipatory bail and cancelling existing warrants subject to the appellants’ appearance before the Special Court, filing undertakings, and furnishing bonds.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
