senior adv NRE My submission is that they are not authorized/deemed as Station House Officers under the PMLA, but whereas all the special Acts namely Customs Act, GST Act are empowering those officers as Station House Officers. In fact, section 53 (2) OF NDPS Act may also be referred to.

senior adv NRElango

RE: VALID ORDER OF REMAND

1. PARA 71 (AT PAGE 70) of the first compilation of the Judgment -Gautam Navlakha 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 382,
2. PARA 12 (AT PAGE 15) of the first compilation of the Judgment – MADHU LIMAYE, IN RE (1969)1SCC 118,
3. PARA 8 (AT PAGE NO 22) of the first compilation of the Judgment – GURUSAMY VS STATE (2004)1 LW (CRL) 418.
– – – – – – – – – – – — — — – – – — – – – — – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – — — – – — — – –
4. Remand application, Reject the remand application and the bail petition were all filed on 14/06/2023 before the learned Principal Judge. Pl refer page 289,296 of the compilation.
5. In the remand order the learned judge has observed as follows, “Grounds of arrest was said to have been conveyed by the Investigating Officer but the accused denied to acknowledge and signed the same. Also relatives of the accused are said to have been not available in the place of arrest and they have been informed through SMS and Email since they didn’t pick the phone call. Proof has also been produced. See page 283 ,6th line from the bottom.
6. The Respondent is heavily relying upon this observation in their additional counter affidavit a page 417.
7. Now the genuineness of this claim is to be put in to test.
8. The remand order was passed at 03.45 pm on 14/06/2023 and hence the arrest memo and the relevant endorsement and the grounds of arrest ought to have been placed before the learned Principal judge at or before 03.45 pm on 14/06/2023.
9. Please refer 263,269 of the compilation which reveal that those documents were received only on 16/06/2023 by the court. This falsifies the claim of the Respondent. Makes the order of remand illegal and one which passed without application of mind.
10. Please refer section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act,
11. Please see pages 263 and 269 which according to the Respondent came into existence at or before )1.38 am on 14.06.2023.
12. Please refer page 268. Upto para 13 it is typed in computer; Para 14 was inserted by handwriting.
13. It reads as follows,” The intimation regarding arrest of Senthil Balaji was communicated to his brother Asokh and other relatives /friends (Copy of the mobile screen shots and email enclosed.)
14. Please refer page 269 the hand written note says that, “Grounds of arrest conveyed to V.Senthil Balaji . As he is not cooperating, arrest memo is being executed in presence of panchas. The fact that he refused to receive, and sign is not recorded anywhere.
15. Now more importantly it is to be noted that these documents must have come into existence at or before 01.38 am 0n 14/06/2023, which is the time of arrest.
16. Please refer to 9th line from top at Page, 389. the emails were sent only at 08.12 am. This falsifies the entire claim of the Respondents.
17. Now please refer to Cl secondly of section 464 IPC
18. Please refer Section 43 of IPC.

RE : POLICE CUSTODY

1. I submitted that the ED is having no jurisdiction to seek foe Police custody. On the one hand they say that they are not Police officers and hence 41 A is not applicable to them. On the other hand, they say they are Police officers and Cr.P.C. is applicable to them.
2. My submission is that they are not authorized/deemed as Station House Officers under the PMLA, but whereas all the special Acts namely Customs Act, GST Act are empowering those officers as Station House Officers. In fact, section 53 (2) OF NDPS Act may also be referred to.
3. Now in their unnumbered HCMP they have taken the support of DEEPAK MAHAJAN AND VIJAY MANDAL CHOUDHARY cases. Deepak Mahajan is concerned it relates to FERA. Please refer to section 35 (3) OF FERA. It also empowers the officers of ED as Station House Officers. Vijay Mandal speaks about continued detention after the remand but do not speak about the police custody. The continued detention is in view of section 45 of PMLA the bail provisions.
4. ‘The Procedure established by law ‘is that only the Station House Officer is solely responsible for the safety, wellnesses., of a person placed under Police Custody as per 637 (3) ( e) of the Police Standing orders.
5. Similar PSO of the other States are also speaks about.
6. Courts cannot authorize a detention of a person to Police Custody who is not a Station House Officer who is not authorized so by the Parliament.