The Supreme Court upheld the validity of some provisions of the PMLA, saying that Section 5 of the Act which allows the attachment of property of those involved in the money laundering case was “constitutionally valid".
The Supreme court had also said the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in every case to the person concerned is “not" mandatory. The ECIR is the ED's equivalent of a police FIR. The bench had also said that it was enough for the ED to disclose the grounds of the arrest at the time of the arrest.
Rejecting the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the PMLA Act 2002, the Supreme Court said, "The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the 2002 Act is also rejected. There are stringent safeguards provided in Section 19. The provision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness."
It also said that a special court can look into the relevant records presented by the ED when the arrested person is produced before it. This will answer the need for the person's continued detention in connection with the alleged offence of money laundering, it said.
"Section 5 is constitutionally valid. It provides for a balancing arrangement to secure the interest of the person as also ensures that proceeds of crime remain available to be dealt with in the manner provided under the Act," the SC bench said.
The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions on the interpretation of certain provisions of the PMLA.
(With agency inputs)
