Introduction 

• This case Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) merely complements and supplements Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and due to some procedural error, a sanction obtained cannot be invalidated. 
• This case states that a sanction cannot be invalidated merely because of procedural error. 

Facts 

• Balaji, the Minister of Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for giving jobs by taking cash. 
• The appellant was taken to the Tamil Nadu Government Multi Super Speciality Hospital, Chennai as he complained of chest pain. 
• On the very same day of the arrest the wife of the appellant approached the Madras High Court and filed for the writ of Habeas Corpus contending that the arrest was illegal. 
• The appellant filed an application for bail. 
• The bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court. 
• During the arrest ED asked the trial court to permit custody of the applicant for investigation. 
• The trial court granted ED permission to send the appellant to judicial custody for 15 days. 
• ED requested 8 more days’ custody from the trial court as due to the plaintiff’s health conditions, he was admitted to the hospital and ED could not investigate during that time. 
• ED filed a Special Leave Petition seeking direction that the custody of 15 days should not come in a way of actual custody. 
• An application was filed by the respondent before the High Court of Madras to exclude the hospitalization period to count custody period as no actual custody was taken. 
• The trial court granted 8 days custody of appellant to ED. 
• When the appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court, the court set aside the High Court order and stayed the proceedings in the money laundering. 
• On the very next day of this order the wife of Balaji approached the High Court and filed for the writ of Habeas Corpus. 
  • As, the Madras High Court denied him interim bail but allowed him to be shifted to a private hospital named Cauvery Hospital after he complained of chest pain. 
  • He was illegally detained and arrested by ED. 
  • The appellant also filed a bail application. 
• The Madras High Court bench passed a split judgement on the matter, so it was referred to a single judge who held: 
  • The ED has the power to seek custody of a person arrested. 
  • Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable after a judicial order of remand is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 
  • The Single Judge sent back the issue of whether the hospitalization period to be count in the custody period as no actual custody was taken 
• The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition aggrieved by the decision of the Single Judge of the Madras High Court. 
• The respondent also preferred SLP to the Supreme Court challenging the interim order of the High Court and the conditions imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge while granting remand and for the exclusion of 15 days. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether ED has the power to seek custody of a person arrested? 
• Whether Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable after a judicial order of remand is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction? 
• Whether the hospitalization period to be count in the custody period as no actual custody was taken? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that the writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on the same day of arrest cannot sustain as the appellant was produced before the trial court in compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA. 
• It was further added by the court that the two remands given in favor of the respondents were not in contradiction of any law as Section 167(2) of the CrPC merely complements and supplements Section 19 of the PMLA.  
• The Supreme Court observed that the word “custody” under Section 167(2) of the CrPC shall mean actual custody also the words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC would include not only a police custody but also that of other investigating agencies. 
• It was also observed that the maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation – 60 or 90 days, as a whole. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court allowed ED to have Balaji's custody for a further 8 days. 
• The Supreme Court held that ED was entitled to take Balaji into police custody.   
• The Supreme Court dismissed the plea of Habeus Corpus filed by the appellant.