PRIYAVRAT MANDHANA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner invokes writ jurisdiction as well as inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr. P.C") essentially on the ground of alleged illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 29/7/2024 along with seven to nine of their officers who arrived at his residence, purportedly to carry out a search and seizure under Sec. 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short " the P.M.L Act"). No "reasons to believe" as mandated under Sec. 17 of the P.M.L Act were served on him.

(2.) Without going into the merits of the case, a short point which needs to be looked into is, as to whether arrest of the petitioner by the respondents was in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement,2024 SCC Online SC 1703. in the sense, whether there was sufficient material with the authorized officer who had recorded his "reasons to believe" in writing and whether there was a necessity to arrest the petitioner?

(3.) We heard Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venegavkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Directorate of Enforcement for quite some time.