PARASMAL LODHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the same in Crl.M.P.No.48 of 2017 on the file of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases dated 5.1.2017 in ECIR No.19 of 2016 on the file of the respondent.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of the major shareholders of M/s.Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and his accounts are audited in accordance with law. While so, the Income Tax Department conducted raid at his premises and thereafter, the petitioner was detained by the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi, on 19.12.2016. Subsequently, he was arrested on 21.12.2016 by the Enforcement Directorate, Delhi, pursuant to the registration of ECIR No.14/DZO - II/2016 dated 16.12.2016. Thereafter, he was produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on 4.1.2017, pursuant to the application made by the Enforcement Directorate, the learned Special Judge permitted the petitioner to be produced before the XI Additional Sessions Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, in respect of production warrant under Section 267 of Cr.P.C. issued by the XI Additional Sessions Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai. On the strength of the said production warrant, the Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, took physical control of the petitioner and produced him before the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, on 5.1.2017. Upon production, the Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, sought judicial custody of the petitioner in respect of ECIR No.19 of 2016 and the learned Judge has also passed a detailed order remanding the petitioner to judicial custody in respect of the said case till 19.1.2017. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that the petitioner has been remanded for the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA). The power to remand a person prior to cognizance, is traceable to Section 167 Cr.P.C. According to Section 167 Cr.P.C., a person can be arrested and remanded to judicial custody by a Magistrate who does not have jurisdiction to try the case. However, this power is limited to the period of first remand. Subsequent thereto, only the jurisdictional Court has the power to remand the accused and other Courts cease to have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter in any manner. However, in the case on hand, the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, has not been notified under Section 43 of the PMLA to try such scheduled offence. In this regard, learned senior counsel has brought to the attention of this Court to Sections 43 and 44 of PMLA, which read as follows:-