No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. It has to be expeditiously and simultaneously – SC
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. The word “immediately” does not mean within 24 hours or within a set time limit, it means that the material has to be transferred expeditiously and simultaneously.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5244 (2026) (10) abacus.in SC
Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties:
Union of India V. KA Najeeb
Arvind Dham V. Directorate of Enforcement
Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. V. Enforcement Directorate
Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Padam Chand Jain V. Enforcement Directorate
In the instant case the appellant had challenged the order of the Hon’ble High Court rejecting regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The allegation against the appellant was that he had orchestrated a complex web of financial transactions to fraudulently inflate the company’s turnover, secure credit from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India, and divert those funds for personal enrichment through number of shell companies.
It was alleged that the Appellant had created several shell companies, number of persons were made dummy directors and several companies were manned by his relatives who contributed to the offence of money laundering. The Appellant was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate and had remained in custody for about 20 months, the maximum punishment prescribed under the PMLA being seven years.
The Appellant submitted that the arrest was vitiated due to the non-compliance of Section 19(1) and (2). It was stated that there was a delay of 5 days in forwarding the arrest order and material in possession to the Adjudicating authority which constitutes as non-compliance of Section 19(2). Since arrest itself was vitiated, invocation of Section 45 was legally impermissible.
On the contrary, the Directorate of Enforcement submitted that the Appellant /Accused was produced before the Special Court within 24 hours. That allegation of delayed compliance with Section 19(2) of the PMLA, 2002, was wholly misconceived and devoid of merit because post-arrest procedural requirement cannot be turned into a pre-remand sanction requirement. The delay of five days, by itself, does not vitiate the arrest and consequent remand as the said section does not prescribe automatic invalidation of arrest as the consequence of delayed forwarding.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that the arrest was rendered illegal and there was non-compliance of Section 19(2) because there was a delay of 5 days in forwarding the arrest order and material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. It has to be done “immediately”. The word “immediately” does not mean within 24 hours or within a set time limit, it means that the material has to be transferred expeditiously and simultaneously. When the records of the case run into thousands of pages, it is natural for the arresting officer to require some time to forward the same. Again, this time cannot be strictly defined, but as long as the forwarding of the material is simultaneous with the arrest, with no delay, except for that which is absolutely necessary, the same cannot be said to be falling foul of Section 19(2) of the Act. When an investigating agency is collecting, assimilating, and compiling evidence to be forwarded, there can be administrative requirements which need to be fulfilled and which might require a few days of time to be adhered to. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the delay of five days will jeopardise the state of arrest itself.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the culmination of the trial is a time consuming process, since the trial court will have to go through documents running into thousands of pages and examine around hundred witnesses. The Appellant must not be subjected to the rigours of custody as long as the trial is pending. Hence, Appellant must be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority
- Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
- EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
- Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment
- A bald statement recorded during survey can not be basis for any addition
