Gian Chand vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the arrest order challenge. While acknowledging the petitioner's arguments regarding the arrest and the location of predicate offenses within Himachal Pradesh, the Court found that the arrest occurred in New Delhi, the ECIR was lodged in Delhi, and the scheduled offense FIR was registered in Saharanpur. The Court reasoned that the mere existence of FIRs within its jurisdiction and a subsequent raid leading to the trail of proceeds of crime did not establish a part of the cause of action sufficient to test the merits of the arrest order. The Court explicitly stated it would not delve into the merits of the legality of the arrest to avoid prejudicing the petitioner, having concluded it had no jurisdiction in the peculiar facts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the petitioner advised to challenge the arrest before the competent court having jurisdiction. The Court also referenced principles from other judgments emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses under PMLA and the need for thorough judicial scrutiny at trial, noting that the alleged offense was a continuing one and the quantum of proceeds of crime exceeded the statutory threshold.

Facts

The petitioner, Gian Chand, challenges his arrest on November 18, 2024, by the Assistant Director under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The grounds of arrest were provided, and an associate was informed. Subsequently, the Special Judge, Enforcement Directorate, Ghaziabad, granted remand for three days (November 19-22, 2024) and implicitly rejected a bail application. A further order on November 22, 2024, sent the petitioner to judicial custody. The petitioner argues that the predicate offenses occurred within the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and the arresting officer improperly chose a court for production based on personal preference. He contends his continued custody in Ghaziabad is unconstitutional and violates his fundamental rights. Initially, the petitioner sought to withdraw a writ petition before the Supreme Court with liberty to approach the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which was granted on December 13, 2024. A subsequent application for interim directions before the High Court was dismissed, which was later clarified by the Supreme Court as interim and not impacting the main writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest order dated 18.11.2024, passed under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, is illegal and arbitrary, violating the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) & (2) of the Constitution, on the grounds that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty of scheduled offenses and that the predicate offenses occurred within the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, thereby challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad court for remand and subsequent proceedings? (Section 19 PMLA, Article 21, Article 22(1) & (2) Constitution of India) Petitioner's arguments: The material in possession of the authorized officer and the recorded reasons for belief did not demonstrate guilt for scheduled offenses, thus lacking reasonable grounds for arrest. The ECIR lodged in Delhi referenced FIRs from Himachal Pradesh, indicating the principal schedule/predicate offenses were committed within the High Court's jurisdiction, and the arresting officer improperly exercised power by choosing a court for production based on whim. The Ghaziabad court lacked territorial jurisdiction for remand and proceedings. Respondents' arguments: Not recorded in the provided text.