The Supreme Court on 3rd October, 2023 passed a landmark judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India. 

The judgment is on Section 19 of the PMLA which reads as follows: 

There was a a need for clarity on the phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest.”  and, in particular, the expression “inform” .

It was not clear whether the obligation to ‘inform’ would merely mean reading out such grounds orally to the Accused, or was it necessary to communicate & supply them in-writing to the person arrested.

The Court held that it was mandatory to supply them in writing and if the same is not done, the arrest as well as the remand order can be set aside on that ground alone and the arrested person released.

It held:

Para 32…….there is no valid reason as to why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.

There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle.

Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorized officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though the ED claims that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji (supra). Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorized officer in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorized officer.

The Court further held:

33….

The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002

The Court finally concluded by observing:

35. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.