Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: PMLA 50

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Timing and humane recording of statements under PMLA summons: The reported High Court judgment directs that statements of persons summoned under section 50 PMLA should ordinarily be recorded during reasonable/earthly hours and calls for departmental directions on timings. It should be published only from the official judgment because the matter concerns enforcement procedure.

Material facts and background

- The petitioner joined the investigation at 10:30 a.m. According to the petitioner, his personal liberty was curtailed and his movements restricted, inasmuch as, his mobile phone was seized by the respondent-ED at 10:30 a.m; and at all times since the petitioner entered the respondent-ED Office, the petitioner was

surrounded by officers and the petitioner was not permitted to talk to anyone and that even when he used the washroom, the ED Officers accompanied him, thus showing that the petitioner’s liberty was curtailed. 07.08.202308.08.2023

08.08.2023 - The petitioner was not produced before the 5:30 a.mnearest Magistrate / nearest Spl. PMLA Court, 5:00 p.m. New Delhi and nor any transit remand was sought from the nearest PMLA Court, New Delhi and instead, the petitioner was brought to Mumbai by a flight and was taken to the office of the ED at Mumbai. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in violation of Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India which provides for accused to be produced before the nearest Magistrate. SQ Pathan

- Petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge, PMLA Court, Mumbai at 5:00 p.m. on 08.08.2023, wherein the respondent-ED sought transit remand of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was non-cooperative. It appears that the respondent-ED did not press for transit remand to take the petitioner to Gujarat and instead, the petitioner was remanded to the respondent-ED’s custody. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of 24 hours from 07.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m. i.e. from the time when the petitioner was taken into custody by the respondent-ED and his liberty was curtailed, expired on 08.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m, since the petitioner was not produced before the nearest Magistrate, even excluding the travel time. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

that there was no illegality in the arrest of the petitioner and that the petitioner was produced before the Court of competent jurisdiction well within 24 hours as mandated in law. According to Mr. Venegavkar, the time-line of events leading to the arrest and production of the petitioner is as under : DATE

Appellant / assessee submissions

Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner

- Respondent-ED interrogated the petitioner the whole night despite the petitioner being medically unfit and was kept awake for 20 hours and was not allowed to sleep, despite the petitioner having joined investigation on three previous occasions where his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded on every occasion. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was in clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right ‘Right to Sleep’, which forms part of his right to life, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

08.08.2023 - The petitioner was not produced before the 5:30 a.mnearest Magistrate / nearest Spl. PMLA Court, 5:00 p.m. New Delhi and nor any transit remand was sought from the nearest PMLA Court, New Delhi and instead, the petitioner was brought to Mumbai by a flight and was taken to the office of the ED at Mumbai. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in violation of Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India which provides for accused to be produced before the nearest Magistrate. SQ Pathan

- Petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge, PMLA Court, Mumbai at 5:00 p.m. on 08.08.2023, wherein the respondent-ED sought transit remand of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was non-cooperative. It appears that the respondent-ED did not press for transit remand to take the petitioner to Gujarat and instead, the petitioner was remanded to the respondent-ED’s custody. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of 24 hours from 07.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m. i.e. from the time when the petitioner was taken into custody by the respondent-ED and his liberty was curtailed, expired on 08.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m, since the petitioner was not produced before the nearest Magistrate, even excluding the travel time. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

Directorate (`ED’) and remanded the petitioner to custody till 10.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Special Judge failed to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. State Represented

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

to maintain the delicate balance of health necessary for its very existence and survival. Sleep is, therefore, a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life itself would be in peril. To disturb sleep, therefore, would amount to torture which is now accepted as a violation of human right. It would be similar to a third degree method which at times is sought to be justified as a necessary police action to extract the truth out of an accused involved in heinous and cold-blooded crimes. It is also a device adopted during warfare where prisoners of war and those involved in espionage are subjected to treatments depriving them of normal sleep.”

Operative decision and relief

had not reported to the Office of the ED on 3 earlier occasions, post the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA. This was the 4th summons which was issued to the petitioner. On all the earlier occasions, his statements were recorded and as such, the petitioner could have well been summoned on some other day or even on the next day, instead of keeping him waiting post midnight, despite his alleged consent. Consent is immaterial. Recording of statement, at unearthly hours, definitely results in deprivation of a person’s sleep, a basic human right of an individual.

appropriate to direct the ED to issue a circular/directions, as to the timings, for recording of statements, when summons under Section 50 of the PMLA are issued, having regard to what is observed by us hereinabove.

aforesaid observations. To be listed on 9th September 2024 for recording compliance of the directions issued by this Court to the ED in para 20 above.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Directorate of Enforcement vs Shri Ram Kotumal
• Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. State Represented
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 2 and Vakamulla
• Chandrashekhar v. Enforcement Directorate3
• Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Timing and humane recording of statements under PMLA summons. The operative result is classified as Remanded / restored. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Timing and humane recording of statements under PMLA summons. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance