R.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision is filed to set aside the order dtd. 28/2/2018 passed in un-numbered Crl.MP.... in ECIR/CEZO/08/2014 passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and now on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court for enforcement Directorate Cases).

(2.) The respondent arrested the petitioner on 27/2/2018 in ECIR/CEO/80/2014(ECIR) and produced the petitioner before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for remand. The petitioner was produced before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate on 27/2/2018 at 21.50hrs at the residence of the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate directed to produce the petitioner on 28/2/2018 and the respondent produced the revision petitioner before the Magistrate on 28/2/2018. The revision petitioner made the objections before the Magistrate that the offence under Sec. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as "PML Act") are non-cognizable offence and Cl.(1-a) introduced by the amendment that "no police office shall investigate into an offence under the Act unless specifically authorized by Central Government by General or Special Order". Therefore, the respondent has not been authorised to do the same, the arrest made by the respondent is without any law and the same is illegal. Further the offence under Sec. 420 IPC is not the schedule offence under PML Act on the date of arrest and therefore the arrest is illegal as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Wherever, the statutory authority such as respondent is permitted under law only to act on the basis of reason to believe with the bonafide existence of such reason to believe is a question of very jurisdiction and is subject to judicial scrutiny. The authority has not shown any materials to arrive at conclusion that it had a reason to believe for arresting the revision petitioner and produce before the Magistrate for remand.

(3.) The learned Magistrate also without any jurisdiction remanded the revision petitioner and without considering the objections raised by the revision petitioner. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside the order passed by the Magistrate on 28/2/2019.