RADHIKA AGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1331, 2025 INSC 272

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, M.M. Sundresh and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others [2025] 2 S. C. R. 1331 : 2025 INSC 272 Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018) 27 February 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI, M. M. Sundresh and Bela M. Trivedi,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Challenge to the constitutional validity and the right of the authorized officers to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 - Finance Act, 2012 - Finance Act, 2013 - Finance Act, 2019 - ss. 104(4), 104(6) - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss. 69, 70, 132 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.

4, 5, 50; Chapter XII - Constitution of India - Articles 246-A, 21 22(1), 32, 226 - Om Prakash case held that the offences under the Customs Act were non- cognizable and, therefore, the customs officers were required to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate before making an arrest - Subsequently, amendments made - Challenge to the constitutional validity and the right of the authorised officers under the Customs Act as well as the GST Acts to arrest: Held: [Per Sanjiv Khanna, CJI (for himself and M. M. Sundresh, J.

)] Challenge to the amendments as well as provisions of the Customs Act, rejected - The amendments made to the Customs Act in 2012, 2013 and 2019 are substantive and were introduced to modify the application of Om Prakash case, which required a customs officer to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate before making an arrest - These amendments designated specified offences as cognizable and non-bailable, while also imposing certain preconditions and stipulations for making arrest - Petitioners' reliance on Om Prakash case is misconceived as the statutory provisions have undergone amendments to bring them in consonance with the law of the land - Moreover, the * Author 1332 provisions themselves provide enough safeguards against arbitrary and wrongful arrests - Further, challenge to the vires of ss.

69 and 70 of the GST Acts is also rejected - Under Article 246-A of the Constitution, the Parliament has the power to make laws regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, enact provisions against tax evasion - The impugned provisions lay down the power to summon and arrest, powers necessary for the effective levy and collection of GST - A penalty or prosecution mechanism for the levy and collection of GST, and for checking its evasion, is a permissible exercise of legislative power - The GST Acts, in pith and substance, pertain to Article 246-A of the Constitution and the powers to summon, arrest and prosecute are ancillary and incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services tax - Therefore, challenge to the constitutional validity as also the right of the authorised officers under the Customs Act and the GST Acts to arrest are dismissed - The pre-conditions and when and how the power of arrest is to be exercised, elucidated and clarified.

[Paras 22, 48, 60, 75, 77] - [Per Bela M. Trivedi, J. (Concurring)] When the legality of an arrest made under the Special Acts like Customs Act, GST Acts etc.

is challenged, the Court should be extremely loath in exercising its power of judicial review - The safeguards provided in the Special Acts against the arrest of a person, are provided keeping in view the fundamental rights of life and personal liberty of a person enshrined in the Constitution of India - The safeguards are the requirement to have "material" in possession of the authorized officer, to form an opinion and record in writing the "reasons to believe" that the person arrested is guilty of an offence or has committed an offence as the case may be, under the provisions of the concerned Act, and the requirement to inform the person arrested, as soon as may be, of the grounds of arrest - There has to be due compliance of the Constitutional and Statutory mandates, whenever an arrest is made of a person under the Special Acts - Power of judicial review in cases of arrest under such Special Acts should be exercised very cautiously and in rare circumstances to balance individual liberty with the interest of justice and of the society at large - Any liberal approach in construing the stringent provisions of the Special Acts may frustrate the very purpose and objective of the Acts - The powers of judicial review may not be exercised unless there is manifest arbitrariness or gross violation or non-compliance of the statutory safeguards provided under the special Acts, required to be followed by the authorized officers when an arrest is made of Radhika Agarwal v.

Union of India and Others a person prima facie guilty of or having committed offence under the special Act - Judicial Review. [Paras 6, 9, 12, 13] Constitution of India - Article 246-A - Lists I and II of the Seventh Schedule - Entry 93, List I - Doctrine of pith and substance - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss.

69, 70 - Power to summon and arrest; powers necessary for effective levy and collection of GST - Relying on Entry 93 of List I, Seventh Schedule, the petitioners argued that the Parliament can enact criminal provisions only for the matters in List I - It was also argued that the power to summon, arrest and prosecute are not ancillary and incidental to the power of levying GST and therefore, beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament u/Article 246-A: Held: Argument rejected - Article 246-A is a comprehensive provision - The Parliament, u/Article 246-A has the power to make laws regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, enact provisions against tax evasion - While deciding the issue of legislative competence, entries should not be read in a narrow or pedantic sense but given their broadest meaning and the widest amplitude because they are intrinsic to a machinery of government - The ambit of an entry or article laying down the legislative field extends to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which fairly and reasonably can be said to be comprehended in it - This settled dictum regarding the interpretation of legislative entries equally applies to the special provision of Article 246-A.

[Para 75] Customs Act, 1962 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 50, 50A, 41-D, 41-B, 55A - Pre-conditions and safeguards against arbitrary and wrongful arrests to protect the life and liberty of arrestees, enumerated - Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Discussed. [Paras 23-28, 47] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss. 132(1) Clauses (a) to (d); 132(1)(i), 132(5) - Arrest when illegal, stated - ''material''; "reasons to believe": Held: To pass an order of arrest, in case of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the Commissioner must satisfactorily show, vide the reasons to believe recorded by him, that the person to be arrested has committed a non-bailable offence and that the pre-conditions of s.

132(5) are satisfied - Failure to do so would result in an illegal arrest - With regard to the submission made 1334 on behalf of the Revenue that arrests are not made in case of bailable offences, the Commissioner, while recording the reasons to believe should state his satisfaction and refer to the 'material' forming the basis of his finding regarding the commission of a non-bailable offence specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) to s. 132 - The computation of the tax involved in terms of the monetary limits under clause (i) of sub-section (1), which make the offence cognizable and non-bailable, should be supported by referring to relevant and sufficient material - The aforesaid exercise should be undertaken in right earnest and objectively, and not on mere ipse dixit without foundational reasoning and material - The arrest must proceed on the belief supported by reasons relying on material that the conditions specified in s.

132(5) are satisfied, and not on suspicion alone - An arrest cannot be made to merely investigate whether the conditions are being met - The arrest is to be made on the formulation of the opinion by the Commissioner to be duly recorded in the reasons to believe - The reasons to believe must be based on the evidence establishing to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the requirements of s. 132(5) of the GST Act are met - The findings and the ratio recorded in paragraphs 30 to 47 with reference to the Customs Act would equally apply insofar as maintenance of records as well as obligations of the arresting officer and rights of the accused/person arrested are concerned - Compliance in this regard must be made - Circular dtd. 17. 08. 2022 of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST-Investigation Wing); Instruction No. 01/2025-GST dated 13. 01.

2025 (GST/ INV/Instructions/21-22) by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (GST Investigation Wing), discussed - Customs Act, 1962. [Paras 56, 57, 60-62] Constitution of India - Arts. 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Arrest - Challenge to - Exercise of power of judicial review - Scope - Discussed. [Per Bela M. Trivedi, J. ] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss. 73, 132(1) clauses (a) to (d), 132(1)(i), 132(5) - Petitioners contended that the power u/s. 132(5) cannot be exercised unless the procedure u/s. 73 is completed and an assessment order is passed quantifying the tax evaded or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed: Held: Contention cannot be accepted as a general or broad proposition - Normally the assessment proceedings would quantify Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others the amount of tax evaded, etc. and go on to show whether there is any violation in terms of clauses (a) to (d) to sub-section (1) of s.

132 and that clause (i) to sub-section (1) is attracted - But there could be cases where even without a formal order of assessment, the Revenue is certain that it is a case of offence u/clauses (a) to (d) to sub-section (1) of s. 132 and the amount of tax evaded, etc. falls within clause (i) of sub-section (1) to s.

132 with sufficient degree of certainty - In such cases, the Commissioner may authorise arrest when he is able to ascertain and record reasons to believe - The reasons to believe must be explicit and refer to the material and evidence underlying such opinion - There has to be a degree of certainty to establish that the offence is committed and that such offence is non-bailable - The principle of benefit of doubt would equally be applicable and should not be ignored either by the Commissioner or by the Magistrate when the accused is produced before the Magistrate - The findings and the ratio recorded in paragraphs 30 to 47 of the present judgment with reference to the Customs Act would equally apply insofar as maintenance of records as well as obligations of the arresting officer and rights of the accused/person arrested are concerned - Compliance in this regard to be made - Customs Act, 1962.

[Paras 59, 60] Customs Act, 1962 - Customs officers, if are police officers: Held: No - An officer can be deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of s. 25, Evidence Act only if the officer is empowered to exercise all the powers of a police officer including the power to file a report u/s. 173, CrPC - Customs officers are not police officers - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 25 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 173. [Paras 15, 16] Circular/Notices - Circular F. No. GST/INV/Instructions/2022-2023 (Instruction No. 01/2022-23) dated 25. 05. 2022 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - Taxpayers depositing partial or full GST liability during the course of search, inspection or investigation - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss.

79, 74(5), 73(5) - Petitioners submitted that the assessees are compelled to pay tax as a condition for not being arrested - Data as regards the number of people arrested, tax demanded and collected, analysed: Held: The data reflects that the number of arrests is inversely proportional to the percentage of amount recovered against the 1336 amount detected. i. e. , when payments are made, the power of arrest is not being exercised - The authorities must exercise due care and caution as coercion and threat to arrest amount to a violation of fundamental rights and the law of the land - s.

74(5) gives an option to the assessee and does not confer any right on the tax authorities to compel or extract tax by threatening arrest - Assessees being compelled to pay tax as a condition for not being arrested is unacceptable and violative of the rule of law - Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to formulate guidelines to ensure that no taxpayer is threatened with the power of arrest for recovery of tax in the garb of self-payment - If there is a breach of law and the assessees are put under threat, force or coercion, they would be entitled to move the courts and seek a refund of tax deposited by them - The department would also take appropriate action against the officers in such cases. [Paras 65, 67-69] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.

4(1), (2), 5 - Customs Act, 1962: Held: The provisions of the Code would be applicable to the extent that there is no contrary provision in the special act or any special provision excluding the jurisdiction and applicability of the Code. [Para 13] Customs Act, 1962 - s. 104(1) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s. 19(1) - Directorate of Enforcement's power of arrest vis-à-vis customs officer's power of arrest, discussed - "person guilty of an offence"; "person committing an offence"; "reasons to believe"; "material in their possession" - If there is any inconsistency between s. 19(1), PML Act and s. 104(1), Customs Act: Held: No - Principles and ratio developed in the Arvind Kejriwal case and the principles specifically discussed and delineated in paragraphs 30 to 45 of the present judgment, are equally applicable to the power of arrest u/s. 104, Customs Act - Respondent authorities to comply with the mandate of this judgment and that of Arvind Kejriwal - However, s.

104(1) does not explicitly stipulate the requirement of a customs officer having "material in their possession" - s. 104(1) also does not explicitly state that the customs officer must reasonably believe that the arrestee is "guilty of an offence" - Instead, s. 104(1) states that the customs officer must have "reasons to believe" that the arrestee has "committed Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others an offence" - There is no difference between a person being guilty of an offence and a person committing an offence - A person being "guilty" of an offence and a person "committing" an offence is self-same and identical insofar as s. 19(1) vis-à-vis s. 104(1) is concerned - The fact that s. 104(1) does not explicitly require a customs officer to have "material in their possession" does not imply that a customs officer can conclude that an offence has been committed out of thin air or mere suspicion - The threshold for arrest u/s. 104(1), Customs Act is higher than that u/s.

41 of the Code - Given the framework of the Customs Act which explicitly classifies offences into bailable and non-bailable, as well as cognizable and non-cognizable, the "reasons to believe" must reflect these classifications when justifying an arrest - The reasoning must also state how the monetary thresholds outlined in the Act are met - The "reasons to believe" must include a computation and/or an explanation, based on factors such as the goods seized, from which a conclusion of guilt can be drawn - This level of detail is crucial as it facilitates judicial review of the exercise of the power to arrest - The department's authority to arrest u/s. 104 hinges on satisfying these statutory thresholds - Moreover, the framework of the Customs Act clearly reflects the legislative intent to establish a distinct and unique procedure for the exercise of arrest powers by a customs officer - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 41 - Interpretation of Statutes.

[Paras 40, 41, 43-46, 48] Words and Phrases - "guilty"; person guilty of an offence; person committing an offence; "reasons to believe"; "material in their possession" - Customs Act, 1962 - ss. 104(1), (4), (5), (6) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - s. 19(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 41. [Paras 41-44] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss. 67, 69 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 4, 5: Held: The GST Acts are not a complete code when it comes to the provisions of search and seizure, and arrest - The provisions of the Code would equally apply when they are not expressly or impliedly excluded by provisions of the GST Acts. [Para 50] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - ss. 67, 69, 74, 132(1) clauses (a) to (d), 132(1)(i), 162(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Petitioners submitted that s.

162(1) permits 1338 compounding of offences and therefore, the ratio in Makemytrip be applied to the GST Acts: Held: The decision in Makemytrip case itself carves out an exception when an assessment order under the Finance Act may not be required, namely cases where a person who is shown to be a habitual evader as one who has not filed service tax returns for a continuous period of time, who has a history of repeated defaults for which there have been fines, penalties imposed, and prosecutions launched, etc - It is possible to ascertain these facts from past records - It might be possible for the department to justify resorting to coercive provisions but the notes on the file must offer convincing justification for resorting to such an extreme measure - The contention of the petitioners that till an assessment order was passed u/s.

74 of the GST Acts, the liability cannot be quantified and hence an assessee cannot move an application for compounding of offences is also rejected - There is a difference between the compounding of offences and the arrest of a person - Sufficient safeguards have been stipulated to ensure that no arrests are made till the Commissioner is able to show and establish, on the basis of material and evidence, that the conditions of clauses (a) to (d) as well as clause (i) of sub-section 1 to s. 132 are satisfied and therefore the offences are non-bailable - Anticipatory bail. [Para 71] Case Law Cited Om Prakash and Another v. Union of India and Another[2011] 14 SCR 240 : (2011) 14 SCC 1 - held inapplicable. State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer and Another [2023] 8 SCR 1139 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1043; Bharat Bhushan v. Director General of GST Intelligence, SLP (Crl. ) No. 8525/2024- held not binding. R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others v.

Ajit Mills Limited and Another[1978] 1 SCR 338 : (1977) 4 SCC 98 - followed. Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement[2024] 6 SCR 346 : (2025) 2 SCC 248; A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another [1984] 2 SCR 914 : (1984) 2 SCC 500;State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram[1962] 3 SCR 338;Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal[1969] 2 SCR 461;Illias v. Collector of Customs [1969] 2 SCR 613;Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [2020] 12 SCR 583 : (2021) 4 SCC 1;D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others (1997) 1 SCC 416; Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Jugal Kishore Samra [2011] 7 SCR 889 : (2011) 12 SCC 362; Ashok Munilal Jain and Another v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement(2018) 16 SCC 158;Nandini Satpati v. P. L. Dani and Another[1978] 3 SCR 608 : (1978) 2 SCC 424 - relied on. Directorate of Enforcement v.

Deepak Mahajan and Another [1994] 1 SCR 445 : (1994) 3 SCC 440;Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab[1980] 3 SCR 383 : (1980) 2 SCC 565; Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others [2020] 10 SCR 923 : (2021) 12 SCC 674; Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others[2023] 12 SCR 714 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244; Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi[2024] 6 SCR 666 : (2024) 7 SCC 576; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others[2022] 6 SCR 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; Makemytrip (India) Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others,2016 SCC OnLine Del 4951; Poolpandi and Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others [1992] 3 SCR 247 : (1992) 3 SCC 259; Dukhishyam Benupani, Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 566 : (1998) 1 SCC 52;Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020] 2 SCR 1: (2020) 5 SCC 1;Union of India and Others v.

VKC Footsteps (India) Private Ltd. [2021] 15 SCR 169 : (2022) 2 SCC 603; Mineral Area Development Authority and Another v. Steel Authority of India and Another[2024] 7 SCR 1549 : (2024) 10 SCC 1;Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Others [1955] 1 SCR 1284 : (1955) 1 SCR 1284;Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. and Others v. Union of India [1989] 2 SCR 880 : (1989) 3 SCC 698; State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla and Another [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 904 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 33; Express Hotels (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Another [1989] 2 SCR 893 : (1989) 3 SCC 677; Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi and Ajmer [1961] 1 SCR 482 : 1960 SCC OnLine SC 147. The United Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum and Others,AIR 1941 FC 16 : 1940 SCC OnLine FC 11 referred to. In the judgment of Bela M. Trivedi, J. Additional Secretaryto the Government of India and Others vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 1340 583 : (1992) Supp.

1 SCC 496;Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others [2008] 14 SCR 179 : (2008) 13 SCC 305; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others [2022] 6 SCR 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929;Adri Dharan Das v. State of W. B. [2005] 2 SCR 188 : (2005) 4 SCC 303 relied on. List of Acts Customs Act, 1962; Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Finance Act, 2012; Finance Act, 2019; Finance Act, 2013; Central Excise Act, 1944; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

List of Keywords Section 104(4), 104(6) of Customs Act, 1962; Finance Act, 2012; Finance Act, 2019; Finance Act, 2013; Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Article 246-A of the Constitution of India; Special Acts; GST Acts; Customs Act; Right of the authorized officers to arrest; Pre-conditions and safeguards to protect life and liberty of arrestees; Cognizable and non-cognizable offence; Bailable and non-bailable offence; Power to arrest; Customs officers; Custom officers are not police officers; "reasons to believe", "reasons to believe" to be furnished to the arrestee; Inform arrestee about grounds of arrest; Judicially review; Legality of arrest; Doctrine of proportionality; Fundamental life and liberty; ipse dixit; Directorate of Enforcement's power of arrest; Customs officer's; "person guilty of an offence"; "person committing an offence"; "material in their possession"; Safeguards against arbitrary and wrongful arrests; Conditions precedent to arrest; Procedure of arrest; Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

Case Arising From CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 336 of 2018 (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India) With SLP (Crl) Nos. 1534, 2971, 4078, 7408 and 11049 of 2018, SLP (Crl) Nos. 244, 3647, 5153, 4322-4324, 4546 and 9541 of 2019, SLP (Crl) No. 3366 of 2020, SLP (C) No. 20310 of 2021, SLP (Crl) No. 6660 of 2020 , W. P. (Crl. ) Nos. 6, 40 and 47 of 2021, SLP (Crl) Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others Nos. 1031 and 1107 of 2021, W. P. (Crl. ) No. 144 of 2021, W. P. (Crl. ) Nos. 445 and 585 of 2023 , SLP (Crl) No. 11839 of 2019, T. C. (Crl. ) No. 5 of 2018 , W. P. (Crl. ) Nos. 118 and 119 of 2019, SLP (Crl) No. 6834 of 2019 , W. P. (Crl. ) Nos. 212, 239, 253, 261, 263, 266, 267, 273, 286, 287, 285, 288, 298, 299, 306 and 346 of 2019, SLP (Crl) No. 647 of 2020 , W. P. (Crl. ) No. 387 and 9 of 2020, SLP (Crl) Nos. 1732, 618, 2023 and 6456 of 2020, W. P. (Crl. ) No. 36, 35, 49, 73, 93, 124 and 140 of 2020, SLP (Crl) No. 2814 of 2020 , W. P. (Crl.

) No. 142, 145, 184, 221, 223, 228, 286 and 329 of 2020, SLP (Crl. ) No. 5536 of 2020, W. P. (Crl. ) No. 380 of 2020, SLP (Crl. ) Nos. 6172 and 6303 of 2020, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1401 of 2020, W. P. (Crl) No. 411 and 410 of 2020, W. P. (Crl) No. 4 of 2021, W. P. (Civil) No. 56 of 2021, W. P. (Crl) No. 33 of 2021, SLP (Crl. ) Nos. 1073, 1072 and 2050-2054 of 2021, W. P. (Crl) No. 301 of 2021, SLP (Crl. ) No. 6338 and 6847 of 2021, Diary No. 31616 of 2021, W. P. (Crl) No. 175 and 222 of 2022, SLP (Crl. ) No. 6395 and 10421 of 2022, W. P. (Crl) No. 402, 385, 426, 434, 453, 456, 466, 500, 506, 516 and 502 of 2022, W. P. (Crl) No. 7, 9, 24, 54, 209, 120, 118, 126, 150, 164, 165, 203, 174, 190, 268, 296, 333, 315 and 339 of 2023, W. P. (Crl) No. 303, 305, 313 and 309 of 2019, W. P. (Crl) No. 28, 61, 90, 89 And 285 of 2020, W. P. (Crl) No. 69, 359 and 520 of 2021, W. P. (Crl) No.

334, 332, 338, 337, 357, 384, 403, 431, 408, 428, 452, 454, 453, 449, 461, 493, 464, 473, 475, 484, 497, 538, 526, 529, 521, 516, 518, 562, 539, 549, 610, 548, 550, 551 542, 569, 537, 573, 570, 564, 560, 544, 545, 563, 578, 575, 572, 592, 571, 604, 597, 600, 611, 617, 626, 623, 635, 640, 622, 637, 632, 625, 628, 639, 638, 645, 649, 650, 664, 641, 658, 653, 652, 644, 647, 663, 648, 660 And 655 of 2023, T. P. (Crl. ) No. 1016 of 2023, W. P. (Crl. ) No. 5, 3, 29, 6, 13, 20, 18 and 35 of 2024, SLP (Crl. ) No. 853 of 2024, W. P. (Crl. ) No. 33, 34, 31, 30, 32, 46, 44, 56, 59, 55, 51, 68, 73, 71, 78, 107, 81, 82, 92, 98, 88, 87, 93, 103, 89, 101, 99, 100, 102, 118, 113, 111, 131, 133, 130, 117, 135, 134, 132, 162, 163, 136, 161, 139, 143, 152, 172, 167, 171, 181, 179, 177, 173, 185, 176, 192, 194, 204, 207, 214, 210 and 198 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: S. Nagamuthu, Vikram Chaudhri, Sujit Ghosh, Tarun Gulati, S. Nagamuthu, Suryanarayana Singh, B. H.

Marlapalle, Iqbal Syed, V. K. Khanna, K N Basha, Vishwajeet Singh, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sanjay Jhanwar, Kapil Sibal, Siddharth Luthra, Vikram Chaudhari, 1342 S. Nagamuthu, Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Advs. , Ms. Priyanka Goel, R P Singh, Pankaj Chaudhary, Anurag Mishra, Aman Sinha, Raj Shekhar Sharma, Ms. Alpana Sharma, Keshavam Chaudhri, Gautam Awasthi, Rishi Sehgal, Dr. G. K. Sarkar, Ms. Arveen Sekon, Ayush Choudhary, Ms. Malbika Sarkar, Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Prashant Srivastav, Ms. Nikita Gill, Ms. Aneesha Sinha, Ms. Muskan Khurana, Rishab Tewari, Devanshu Yadav, Digvijay Singh, Deepak Singh, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Kunwar Gangesh Singh, Mohit Kumar Soni, Jatin Harjai, Rohan Agarwal, Upendra Pratap Singh, Prasouk Jain, Ms. Rabiya Thakur, Karan Sinha, Anurag Sharma, Saurabh Sharma, Anshuman Srivastava, Keshavam Chaudhri, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Rishi Sehgal, Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Hargun Sandhu, Ms. Nikita Gill, Digvijay Singh, Rishab Tewari, Muskan Khurana, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Amit K.

Nain, Anand Varma, Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Krishna Sharma, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, M. N. Mishra, Ravi Shankar Garg, Ms. Mamta Garg, Nikhil Jain, Abhishek Garg, Amar Gahlot, Varun Chopra, Prakash Shah, Rajat Mittal, Apurva M Gokhale, Ms. Anshi Bhatia, Ujjawal Kansal, Yash Gaiha, Prashant Singh, Suprateek Neogi, Ranesh Singh Mankotia, Rohit Anil Rathi, Yashas Rk, Sunil Kumar Jain, Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh, Madhur Jain, Sandeep Gupta, Pawanshree Agrawal, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Ms. Aakriti, Atul Krishna, Tarun Dua, Sri Harsha Peechara, Ashish Kumar Tiwari, D Surahmanya Bhanu, Anurag Tiwari, Sahib Patel, Ms. Oshin Maggu, Deepak Gupta, K. Nagan Pillai, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co. , Vijay Kasana, Yadav Narender Singh, Rahul Krishna, Ms. Priyanka Goel, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Aniket Patel, Ajay Choudhary, M. K. Subramanian, Vinodh Kanna B. , Avinish Kr Saurabh, Ajit Pravin Wagh, Purushothaman Reddy, Ms. Karunya, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Ms.

Sharda Garg, Deepkaran Dalal, Abhishek Rai, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Nishant Bishnoi, Mohammad Aslam, Aniq Kadri, Vishrut Bhandari, Amaan Syed, Ms. Ruchit Vyas, D. Kumanan, Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Prashant Sivarajan, Tushar Saigal, Amjad Hussain, Manish Singh, Ritesh Singh, Seraj Khan, Deepak Gupta, Rishabh Yadav, Neeraj Kumar Verma, Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Praver Sharma, Prakhar Sharma, Deepak Kumar Pandey, Swapnil Choudhary, Ms. Anu Gupta, S. K. Verma, S. K. Rajora, Mahipal Singh, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Manisha Chawla, Virendra Mohan, Ms. Kajal Kumari, Ajay Mishra, Gaurav, Ms. Christi Jain, Puneet Jain, Mann Arora, Ms. Akriti Sharma, Harsh Jain, Ms. Lisha Bhati, Jalaj Prakash, Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, S K Sarkar, Rishabh Jain, Mrs. Arti Dvivedi, Bhushan, D. Abhinav Rao, Rahul Jajoo, Devadipta das, Ms.

Prerna Robin, Rajendra Sorankar, Satbir Singh Pillania, Sandiv Kalia, Ketan Dabke, Nand Ram, Vineet Sinha, V G R Achary, Dhanajaya K Tyagi, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Malak Manish Bhatt, Apurva Mehta, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Shreyansh Chopra, B Karunakaran, Ajith Williyam S, P Shankar, Mrs. K Balambihai, V M Eashwar, V Janarthanan, S. Gowthaman, Amit Arora, Yusuf, Amarjeet Singh Girsa, Ms. Ritu Solanki, Jatin Sharma, Shrey Lodha, Bhupesh Narula, Saket Sikri, Vineet Bhaita, Akshat Vachher, Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Parvesh Bansal, Rahul Bansal, Jasvinder Choudhary, Ashwain Sawlani, M/S. Vachher And Agrud, Dr. G. K. Sarkar, Ms. Malbika Sarkar, Prashant Srivastav, Deepak Singh, Kapil Dahiya, Ms. Aneesha Singh, Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Ashutosh Kumar, Manish Kumar Choudhary, Ms. Namita Choudhary, Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Ajay Kumar Thakur, Ashish Batra, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Javed R Sheikh, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms.

Pratibha Singh, Rizwan Ahmad, Nakul Chaudhary, Vikramjeet Singh Ranga, Vijay Aggarwal, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nagesh Bhel, Mukul Malik, Chetan Manchanda, Udayan Khurrana, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Puneet Dhawan, Bhanu Mishra, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Pawan Upadhyay, S. S. Sastry, Vipul Srivastav, M/s. UNUC Legal LLP, Krishna Vani Sharma, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla, Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Ms. Ritika Raj, Saurabh Kumar Solanki, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Ankur Saigal, Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Komal Joshi, Rishi Agrawala, Pushkraj Despande, Anshuman Srivastava, Arshit Anand, Piyush Pandhare, Nishant Rao, Abhinabh Garg, Rohan Marathe, Himanshu Saraswat, Ms. Sayaree Basu Malik, Ms. Manavi Agarwal, E. C. Agrawala, Kunal Verma, Varun Bansal, Rahul Lakhwani, Wilson Joy, Yash Tandon, Ms. Shreya Jhanwar, Tarun Gupta, Bhuwan Vats, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Harsh Sethi, Shakeel Ahmed, Anant Nigam, Ms.

Pratibha Singh, Raghav Luthra, Amir Kaleem, Rizwan Ahmad, Anupam Bhati, Nakul Chaudhary, Vikramjeet Singh Ranga, Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms. Vasudha Sen, Ujjwal Jain, Vineet Wadhwa, Ms. Shambhavi Kashyap, Kartikeye Dang, Rudraditya Khare, Sahir Seth, Harsh Vardhan, Ms. Divya Roy, Mrs. Priya Puri, Sharad Kumar Puri, Ms. Smriti Sinha, Ms. Parul Sharma, Aljo K. Joseph, Vinay Kumar Puvvala, Ranjan Kumar, Abhinav P Dhanodkar, Santosh Kumar Kolkonda, Ms. Shelna K, Dr. G. K. Sarkar, Harshit Sethi, 1344 Gautam Awasthi, Mrs. Malbika Sarkar, Keshavam Chaudhari, Keshvam Chaudhari, Ayush Choudhary, Prashant Srivastav, Ms. Arveen Sekon, Rishi Shegal, Ms. Nikita Gill, Ms. Malvika Sarkar, Digvijay Singh, Ms. Muskan Khurana, Ms. Chandni Sharma, Deepak Singh, Sameer Pandey, Ms. Aneesha Singh, Devanshu Yadav, Ayush Chaudhary, Sahil Sharma, Gaurav Malhotra, Kapil Dahiya, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, R.

Gopinath, Hari Krishnan, Amrish Kumar, Raj Kamal, Aseem Atwal, Kartavya Batra, Anurag Chandra, Ms. Nupur Kaushik, Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Ms. Muskan Sidana, Ms. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Divya Rastogi, Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish, Sandeep Goyal, Pawanshree Agrawal, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Ms. Aakriti, Atul Krishna, Varun Bansal, Rahul Lakhwani, Wilson Joy, Yash Tandon, Ms. Shreya Jhanwar, Tarun Gupta, Bhuwan Vats, Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Krishna Sharma, Ms. Shreya Jain, Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, M. N. Mishra, Ravi Shankar Garg, Ms. Mamta Garg, Pranay Jain, I. C. Jain, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Ajay Pal, Mayank Dahiya, Prativa Prakash Janapriya Nayak. Advs. for the Respondents: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, S. V. Raju, K. M. Nataraj, Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A. S. Gs. , Nalin Kohli, Sr. A. A. G. , Apoorva Aggarwal, Deepak Thukral, A. A. Gs. , Vishal Mahajan, D. A. G. , Tarun Gulati, Ajay Kumar Misra, B. H. Marlapalle, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Rajive Bhalla, Rajiv Malhotra, Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advs. , M/s.

Khaitan & Co. , Nikhil Jain, Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Rajat Nair, Sairica Raju, Zoheb Hossain, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Vivek Gurnani, Samrat Goswami, Hitharth Raja, Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Sahil Rana, Kartik Sharma, Ms. Abhipriya, Ms. A. Kaushal, Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, Shantanu Parmar, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Kanu Agrawal, Madhav Sinhal, Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Arpit Yadav, Ms. Mansi Yadav, Ms. Madhuri Aggarwal, Vikrant Diwakar, Ajay Aggarwal, Adarsh Aggarwal, Naveen Bindal, Rajan Narain, Tarun Dua, Rajat Singh, Mukhtar Alam, Abhishek Singh, Sarthak Chandra, Ms. Diksha Rai, Arijit Dey, Ms. Atiga Singh, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Ms. Rashi Bansal, Ms. Kriti Dang, Ms. Tesu Gupta, B. Krishna Prasad, Vineet George, Dhananjay Yadav, Ms. Devina Sehgal, M. K. Subramanian, Vinodh Kanna B. , Avinish Kr Saurabh, Ajit Pravin Wagh, Purushothaman Reddy, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Gautam Sharma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Shrirang B.

Varma, Siddharth Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Kv Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Meeran Maqbool, Ms. Archita Nigam, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Sairica Raju, Annam Venkatesh, Sughosh Subramanyam, Kanu Agarwal, B K Satija, Zoheb Hussain, Ashutosh Gadhe, Bhuvan Mishra, Ms. Sairica S Raju, Arkaj Kumar, Sharath Nambiar, Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Padmesh Mishra, Rajat Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Chirag M. Shroff, Dhananjay Kataria, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Milind Kumar, Vishal Meghwal, Harsha Vinoy, Ms. Saba A. K. Patel, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Vidhan Vyas, Syed Haider Shah, Shahbaaz Jameel, Kausar Raza Faridi, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ankit Khatri, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms.

Eliza Bar, Anshul Malik, Shruti Agrawal, Ayuushman Aroraa, Kartikey Sen, Shuvodeep Roy, Samar Vijay Singh, Vishal Mahajan, Saurabh Sachdeva, Sandeep Saxena, Manish Verma, Ms. Sabarni Som, Annam Venkatesh, Rajat Mittal, M/s. Khaitan & Co. , Kanu Agrawal, Malak Manish Bhatt, Ashish Batra, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Shubham Bhalla, Yajur Bhalla, Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Ms. Gauri Bedi, Ms. Ragini Sharma, Ms. Ruksana Khan, Ms. Akansha Gulati, Alex Noel Dass, Rohit Pandey, Ashish Batra, Gautam Awasthi, Deepak Singh, Karan Bharihoke. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjiv Khanna, CJI. Leave granted. 2. The fountainhead of legal controversy regarding the power to arrest under the Customs Act, 19621 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,2 stems from the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Om Prakash and Another v. Union of India and 1 For short, "Customs Act". 2 For short, "GST Act". 1346 Another.

3 Before this decision, offences under the Customs Act were treated as non-bailable and once arrested, the accused would be detained for a few months before being released on bail. Om Prakash (supra) observed that the offences under the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, 19444 were non-cognizable and, therefore, even if the officers had the power to arrest,5 they could do so only after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate in terms of Section 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7 It was also held that offences under the Customs Act and the Excise Act were both bailable, bearing a punishment of less than 3 years. 8 3. The reasoning in Om Prakash (supra) proceeds on the interpretation of Sections 49 and 510 of the Code and holds that Section 155 and other provisions of Chapter XII of the Code are applicable.

The principle being that the customs officers and excise officers, though conferred the power of arrest under the respective enactments, the offences being non-cognizable, were not vested with powers beyond that of a police officer in charge of the police station. 4. Before us, the ratio in Om Prakash (supra)has been questioned on various grounds. For the following reasons, we are not inclined to go into all the issues: • First, the decision in Om Prakash (supra)was pronounced on 30. 09. 2011 and held the field for more than 12 years. 3 (2011) 14 SCC 1. 4 For short, "Excise Act". 5 Pursuant to Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A and 136 of the Customs Act and Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6 Section 41 of the Code delineates circumstances when the police may arrest without a warrant. 7 For short, "Code". 8 Part II of the First Schedule to the Code provides that offences which bear an imprisonment term of less than 3 years are both non-cognizable and bailable. 9 "4.

Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. -- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. " 10 "5. Saving. -- Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. " Radhika Agarwal v.

Union of India and Others • Secondly, and more significantly, it is apparent that the legislature has accepted the ratio of the said decision and made specific amendments to the Customs Act. The ratio is equally given effect to and incorporated in the GST Act. • Thirdly, the ratio in Om Prakash (supra)promotes and protects the life and liberty of citizens and, corrects earlier prevalent wrongdoings which diminished the constitutional and statutory rights of citizens. However, we would refer to certain portions of Om Prakash (supra) in the context of the present litigation to interpret relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the GST Act. 5. 'Cognizable offence', defined in Section 2(c) of the Code, means an offence for which the police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule of the Code or any other law for the time being in force, arrest without a warrant.

'Non-cognizable offence', defined in Section 2(l) of the Code, means an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant. 6. Section 155 of the Code enjoins a duty on the officer in charge of a police station to enter, or cause to be entered, the substance of any information received regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence in a book, maintained in the prescribed format. The officer must then refer such informant to the Magistrate. Police officers do not possess the authority to investigate non-cognizable cases without an order from the Magistrate having the power to try such a case or committing it for trial. 11 Upon receiving such an order from the Magistrate, the police officer gains the same investigative powers as those available for cognizable offences, with the exception of the power to arrest without a warrant.

12 Therefore, without an order from the Magistrate and a warrant, a police officer cannot arrest an accused for a non-cognizable offence. 7. Section 104(4) of the Customs Act, post amendments in 2012,13 and 2019,14 reads: 11 Section 155(2) of the Code. 12 Section 155(3) of the Code. 13 Finance Act, 2012 (23 of 2012), with effect from 28. 05. 2012; for short, "2012 Amendment". 14 Finance Act, 2019 (Act 2 of 2019), with effect from 01. 08. 2019; for short, "2019 Amendment".

1348 "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any offence relating to-- (a) prohibited goods; or (b) evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees; or (c) fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, where the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees; or (d) fraudulently obtaining an instrument for the purposes of this Act or the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992), and such instrument is utilised under this Act, where duty relatable to such utilisation of instrument exceeds fifty lakh rupees, shall be cognizable. " Sub-section (5) to Section 104 reads: "Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (4), all other offences under the Act shall be non-cognizable. " 8.

After the 2012 Amendment, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, offences provided in clauses (a) and (b) above are to be treated as cognizable offences. The 2019 Amendment added clauses (c) and (d) to Section 104(4), and these are again cognizable offences. Section 104(5) states that all offences other than those provided under Section 104(4) are non-cognizable. Therefore, the net effect of these amendments is that the offences enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 104(4) are cognizable and residual/ unspecified offences are non-cognizable. 9. Section 104(6) of the Customs Act, post amendments in 201315 and 201916 reads: "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence punishable under Section 135 relating to-- 15 Finance Act, 2013, (Act No. 17 of 2013), with effect from 17. 05. 2013; for short "2013 Amendment". 16 See 2019 Amendment (supra). Radhika Agarwal v.

Union of India and Others (a) evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees; or (b) prohibited goods notified under Section 11 which are also notified under sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 135; or (c) import or export of any goods which have not been declared in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the market price of which exceeds one crore rupees; or (d) fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees; or (e) fraudulently obtaining an instrument for the purposes of this Act or the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992), and such instrument is utilised under this Act, where duty relatable to such utilisation of instrument exceeds fifty lakh rupees, shall be non-bailable.

" Sub-section (7) to Section 104 reads: "(7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under this Act shall be bailable. " 10. The net effect is that offences in Clauses (a) to (d) to Section 104(6) above, inserted vide the 2013 Amendment, and Clause (e), inserted vide the 2019 Amendment, are treated as non-bailable offences. All other offences under the Customs Act, barring aforementioned Clauses (a) to (e) in Section 104(6) of the Customs Act, are bailable. 17 11. Therefore, given the amendments enacted after Om Prakash (supra) -- the 2012 Amendment, the 2013 Amendment, and the 2019 Amendment -- certain categories of offences have been carved out and explicitly made cognizable in terms of Section 104(4). Some of the cognizable offences have been made non-bailable in terms of Section 104(6). All other offences under the Customs Act are non- cognizable, unless carved out in Section 104(4), and bailable, as they are excluded in Section 104(6).

17 See Section 104(7) of the Customs Act. 1350 12. In the aforesaid background, we would now refer to Sections 4 and 5 of the Code, which read: "4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. --(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. 5. Saving.

--Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. (emphasis supplied)" 13. Section 4(1) stipulates that offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Code. For offences under any other local law, Section 4(2) stipulates that they shall be investigated, inquired, tried, or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Code, subject to any other enactment governing the manner or place of investigation, inquiry, trying or otherwise dealing.

Section 5, the savings clause, clarifies that the Code shall not affect any special or local law, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special procedure prescribed, unless there is a specific provision to the contrary. Thus, the provisions of the Code would be applicable to the extent that there is no contrary provision in the special act or any special provision excluding the jurisdiction and applicability of the Code. 18 In A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and 18 See paragraph 128 of Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440. Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others Another,19 a Constitution Bench of this Court has clarified this position while discussing the applicability of the Code to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The relevant portion reads: "16...

In the absence of a specific provision made in the statute indicating that offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to that statute, the same will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, Code of Criminal is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiring into and trial of cases by criminal courts of various designations. " 14. Before discussing the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code and determining which of its provisions apply to offences under the Customs Act, it is relevant to address the writ petitioners' submission that customs officers are police officers. In our opinion, this submission is both unfounded and flawed. 15. In a line of decisions of this Court -- State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram,20 Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal,21 and Illias v.

Collector of Customs22-- it has been decisively held that customs officers are not police officers. Ramesh Chandra Mehta (supra) and Illias (supra) are both Constitution Bench judgments of this Court. Recently, this distinction was affirmed by the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu,23 which observed: 427. The law which emerges from the Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in Badaku Joti Svant, Ramesh Chandra Mehta and Illias is that, an officer can be deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act: (i) if the officer has all the powers of a police officer qua investigation, which includes the power to file a police report under Section 173 CrPC, 19 (1984) 2 SCC 500. 20 (1962) 3 SCR 338. 21 (1969) 2 SCR 461. 22 (1969) 2 SCR 613. 23 (2021) 4 SCC 1.

1352 (ii) the power to file a police report under Section 173 CrPC is an essential ingredient of the power of a police officer, and (iii) the power to file a police report under Section 173 CrPC has to be conferred by statute. xxx xxx xxx 429. As per the well-established norms of judicial discipline and propriety, a Bench of lesser strength cannot revisit the proposition laid down by at least three Constitution Benches, that an officer can be deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act only if the officer is empowered to exercise all the powers of a police officer including the power to file a report under Section 173 CrPC. " 16. We respectfully agree with the view expressed that the customs officers are not police officers. 17. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have also relied upon Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Another.

24 The submission was that since a customs officer is not a police officer, anyone arrested under the Customs Act should be sent to judicial custody. Deepak Mahajan (supra) answers this conundrum, albeit an entirely different issue - whether persons arrested under the Customs Act, on being produced before a Magistrate, can be committed to the custody of a customs officer. 18. Deepak Mahajan (supra) addresses the interplay of Section 167 of the Code25 and Section 104 of the Customs Act. Section 167(2) of 24 (1994) 3 SCC 440. 25 "167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

-- (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction. " Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others the Code allows a police officer to request police remand/custody of a person arrested for a period not exceeding 15 days when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours of the arrest. Deepak Mahajan (supra) clarifies that Section 167(2) of the Code applies equally to Section 104 of the Customs Act. Thus, a Magistrate has the authority under Section 167(2) of the Code to authorise detention of such person to the custody of a customs officer. 19.

On the issue of anticipatory bail, Deepak Mahajan (supra), referring to the dictum in ShriGurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, 26observes that the registration of a case and entries of a case diary are not compulsory when entertaining an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code. Anticipatory bail can be invoked on the likelihood of arrest based on reasonable belief of the person having committed a non-bailable offence. At the same time, Deepak Mahajan (supra) holds that customs officer must mandatorily maintain case diaries: "112.

The expression 'diary' referred to in Section 167(1) of the Code is the special diary mentioned in Section 167(2) which should contain full and unabridged statements of persons examined by the police so as to give the Magistrates on a perusal of the said diary, a satisfactory and complete source of information which would enable him to decide whether or not the accused person should be detained in custody but it is different from the general diary maintained under Section 44 of the Police Act. 113. Though an authorised officer of Enforcement or Customs is not undertaking an investigation as contemplated under Chapter XII of the Code, yet those officers are enjoying some analogous powers such as arrest, seizures, interrogation etc. Besides, a statutory duty is enjoined on them to inform the arrestee of the grounds for such arrest as contemplated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code.

Therefore, they have necessarily to make records of their statutory functions showing the name of the informant, as well as the name of the person who violated any other provision 26 (1980) 2 SCC 565. 1354 of the Code and who has been guilty of an offence punishable under the Act, nature of information received by them, time of the arrest, seizure of the contraband if any and the statements recorded during the course of the detection of the offence/offences. " 20. We now turn to a recent decision of this Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others. 27 This decision examines and harmoniously construes provisions of the Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,28 addressing whether the police could register and investigate the offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in accordance with the Code.

Referring to Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court held that there is an implied bar on police investigation and prosecution, as Section 32 provides for taking cognisance of the court only at the instance of four categories: (i) inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, (ii) gazetted officer empowered by the State or Central Government, (iii) aggrieved person, or (iv) voluntary association. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) refers to Om Prakash (supra) and Deepak Mahajan (supra) to observe: "148. On a perusal of the statement of law contained in para 41 of Om Prakash case, we find that this Court has found that as the provisions under the enactments in question declared the offences to be non-cognizable, the officer exercising the power of arrest, could not arrest, except after obtaining a warrant for the said purpose.

That they may not arrest without obtaining a warrant in respect of the non-cognizable offences, being the view taken by this Court, cannot be squared with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court, respectively, in Sunil Gupta and also Bhavin Impex (P) Ltd. , which took the view in effecting arrest under the Central Excise Act, no warrant was required. It is apparently consequent upon the same that the legislature stepped in with amendments. xxx xxx xxx 27 (2021) 12 SCC 674. 28 For short, "Drugs & Cosmetics Act". Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others 150. The result would appear to be that acknowledging the effect of making the offences being non-cognizable to be to limit the power of the authorities under the Act for effecting arrest under the Act, to require a warrant, certain offences were declared to be cognizable as noticed in Section 9-A, as amended after the judgment in Om Prakash.

The resultant position after the amendment is, it became open to the officers to effect the arrest in regard to a cognizable offence without obtaining a warrant. 151. In regard to the Customs Act, 1962 in Section 104, under the present avatar, two changes have been brought about. Firstly, the power to arrest is available in respect of offences under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135-A and 136. The offences are divided into two categories. Under Section 104(4), the offences which fall within its ambit, are treated as cognizable. The other offences are treated as non-cognizable under Section 104(5). For instance, if a person is involved in an offence relating to evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding 50 lakh rupees (w. e. f. 1-8-2019), while the offence is cognizable, the power of arrest is conferred on the officers under Section 104(1).

The power to arrest is conferred and the only condition to be fulfilled is that the officer has reason to believe that the person has committed the offence concerned. The position is the same in respect of offence relating to prohibited goods. 152. We have embarked upon referring to the provisions relating to arrest under the Excise Act and the Customs Act and the decision of this Court in Om Prakash in taking the view as it did in para 41, in order to appreciate the contention that, after the amendment to Section 36-AC, the offences have been declared cognizable. If we proceed on the basis that the power of arrest can be traced from Section 22(1)(d) of the Act, then, after the amendment in Section 36-AC, by which, the offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act, which are declared as cognizable and non-bailable, the decks are cleared for effecting arrest without a warrant by the Inspector. " 21.

Paragraphs 151 and 152, quoted above, specifically addresses the legal position following the amendments made to the Customs Act. 1356 In 2008, the Drugs and Cosmetics was amended to insert Section 36-AC,29 which specifies that the offences enumerated in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. Clause (b) of the same sub- section outlines the conditions for granting bail to a person arrested. Sub-section (2) further clarifies that these limitations on granting bail were in addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law for the time being in force.

Despite the State's contrary arguments relying on Section 32(3) - which states that nothing in the Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or commission, which constitutes an offence under the Chapter of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the provisions of the Code this Court rejected the contention that the police could investigate and file a charge-sheet under the provisions of the Code. There is also a detailed discussion on the power of arrest and its exercise, including power of search and seizure. While affirming that the power of arrest under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not vest with the officers in charge of the police station, this Court issued several directions emphasising the necessity of compliance with the provisions of the Code by the arresting officer. Additionally, the arresting officer shall follow the guidelines laid down in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

30 Finally, this Court issued a saving order in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution to fend earlier cases where FIR had been registered, and cognisance had already been taken. 22. The amendments made to the Customs Act in 2012, 2013 and 2019 are substantive and were introduced to effectively modify the application of Om Prakash (supra), which required a customs officer to obtain prior approval from a Magistrate before making an arrest. These amendments designated specified offences as cognizable and non- bailable, while also imposing certain pre-conditions and stipulations for making arrest. Consequently, the petitioners' reliance on Om Prakash (supra) is no longer valid and must be rejected. However, it remains important to examine the pre-conditions and safeguards established by the legislature to protect the life and liberty of arrestees. 23.

In paragraph 19 (supra), we referenced the dictum in Deepak Mahajan (supra) regarding the term "diary" as mentioned in Section 167(1) 29 Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 2008, Act No. 26 of 2008. 30 (1997) 1 SCC 416. Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others of the Code. Section 172 of the Code, which relates to the diary of proceedings to be maintained during the investigation, has been amended in 2009. 31 Section 172(1B) now stipulates that the diary should be a duly paginated volume. In order to maintain the authenticity and accuracy of the diary, this mandate is required to be implemented. 24. In terms of Deepak Mahajan (supra), a statutory duty is enjoined on customs officers to inform the arrestee about their grounds of arrest. This duty flows from the rigours imposed by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Code.

While customs officers do not undertake an investigation akin to Chapter XII of the Code, they enjoy analogous powers such as the power to investigate, arrest, seize, interrogate, etc under the Customs Act. Thus, the obligation to provide grounds of arrest is incumbent upon them. Customs officers must also maintain records of their statutory functions including details like the name of the informant, name of the person who has violated the law, nature of information received by the officers, time of arrest, seizure details, and statements recorded during the course of detection of the offence(s). 25. In 2009, the Parliament amended the Code32 to incorporate Section 41-B which outlinesthe procedures of arrest and the duties of the officer making the arrest. 33 Although this section refers to the police officer, we believe, it equally imposes a duty on the customs officers.

Officers making an arrest are required to bear an accurate, legible, and clear indication of their names to facilitate ease of identification by the arrestee. These provisions are in furtherance of the dictum of this Court in D. K. Basu (supra). The Central Board of Excise and Customs, in a Circular dated 20. 02. 1998 (File No. 591/01/98-CUS(AS)), referenced the decision in D. K. Basu (supra). 34 They have reproduced the relevant portions of the judgment with the intent that these would be complied with by the customs officers. We trust that customs officers shall duly comply with this mandate. 31 Act 5 of 2009. 32 Act 5 of 2009. 33 41-B. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest.

--Every police officer while making an arrest shall-- (a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification; (b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be-- (i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made; (ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and (c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest. 34 See also Circular dated 17. 09. 2013 [File No. 394/68/2013-CUS(AS)]. 1358 26. We also hold that Section 41-D of the Code is applicable for offences under the Customs Act. Accordingly, a person arrested by a customs officer has the right to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, but not throughout interrogation.

35 In Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Jugal Kishore Samra,36this Court held that an advocate/authorised person may be present within visual distance during interrogation, but he cannot be within hearing distance of the proceedings nor can there be any consultations with such advocate/authorised person during the course of the interrogation. The relevant portion reads: "29. Taking a cue, therefore, from the direction made in D. K. Basu and having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the interrogation of the respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorised by him. The advocate or the person authorised by the respondent may watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be open to the respondent to have consultations with him in the course of the interrogation. " 27.

Reference can also be made to Section 50A of the Code,37 which states that every police officer or other person making an arrest under the Code shall forthwith give information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends, 35 In 2009, Section 41D was inserted in the Code vide Act 4 of 2009, in furtherance of the principles laid down in D. K. Basu (supra). It reads: "41-D. Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation. -- When any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation. " 36 (2011) 12 SCC 362. 37 50-A. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc. , to a nominated person.

-- (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information. (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person. Radhika Agarwal v.

Union of India and Others relatives, or other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information. The arrested person must be informed of this right. In our opinion, the details of compliance with this mandate must be entered into the diary maintained by customs officer. It is the duty of the Magistrate, when an arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of Section 50A(2) and (3) have been complied with. Thus, we hold that these stipulations will apply in cases of arrests made by the customs officers. 28. Section 55A, inserted in 2009,38 states that it shall be the duty of the person having custody of the accused to take reasonable care of their health and safety. This provision shall be equally applicable to arrests under the Customs Act. 29.

The findings recorded in paragraphs 23 to 28 above, which refer to the provisions of the Code, do not in any way fall foul of or repudiate the provisions of the Customs Act. They complement the provisions of the Customs Act and in a way ensure better regulation, ensuring due compliance with the statutory conditions of making an arrest. 30. Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement,39a recent judgment authored by one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J. ), is a dictum relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 40 This Court held that the power of arrest granted to the Directorate of Enforcement41 under Section 19 of the PML Act is fenced with certain pre-conditions. These pre-conditions act as stringent safeguards to protect the life and liberty of individuals. The relevant portion reads: "9.

A bare reading of the section reflects, that while the legislature has given power to the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or an authorised officer to arrest a person, it is fenced with preconditions and requirements, which must be satisfied prior to the arrest of a person. The conditions are - The officer must have material in his possession. 38 Act 5 of 2009. 39 (2025) 2 SCC 248. 40 For short, "PML Act". 41 For short, "DoE". On the basis of such material, the authorised officer should form and record in writing, "reasons to believe" that the person to be arrested, is guilty of an offence punishable under the PML Act. The person arrested, as soon as may be, must be informed of the grounds of arrest. These preconditions act as stringent safeguards to protect life and liberty of individuals. We shall subsequently interpret the words "material", "reason to believe", and "guilty of the offence".

Before that, we will refer to some judgments of this Court on the importance of Section 19(1) and the effect on the legality of the arrest upon failure to comply with the statutory requirements. " 31. In Arvind Kejriwal (supra), a combined reading of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others,42Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi,43 and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others44 was adopted by this Court. It was held that the power to arrest a person without a warrant and without instituting a criminal case is a drastic and extreme power. Therefore, the legislature had prescribed safeguards in the language of Section 19 itself which act as exacting conditions as to how and when the power is exercisable.

These safeguards include the requirement to have "material" in the possession of DoE, and on the basis of such "material", the authorised officer must form an opinion and record in writing their "reasons to believe" that the person arrested was "guilty" of an offence punishable under the PML Act. The "grounds of arrest" are also required to be informed forthwith to the person arrested. 32. The contention of the DoE that while "grounds of arrest" were mandatorily required to be supplied to the arrestee, "reasons to believe", being an internal and confidential document, need not be disclosed, was decisively rejected in Arvind Kejriwal (supra). It was held that "reasons to believe" are to be furnished to the arrestee such that they can challenge the legality of their arrest. Exceptions are 42 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244. 43 (2024) 7 SCC 576. 44 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. Radhika Agarwal v.

Union of India and Others available in one-off cases where appropriate redactions of "reasons to believe" are permissible. The relevant portion reads: "41. Once we hold that the accused is entitled to challenge his arrest under Section 19(1) of the PML Act, the court to examine the validity of arrest must catechise both the existence and soundness of the "reasons to believe", based upon the material available with the authorized officer. It is difficult to accept that the "reasons to believe", as recorded in writing, are not to be furnished. As observed above, the requirements in Section 19(1) are the jurisdictional conditions to be satisfied for arrest, the validity of which can be challenged by the accused and examined by the court. Consequently, it would be incongruous, if not wrong, to hold that the accused can be denied and not furnished a copy of the "reasons to believe".

In reality, this would effectively prevent the accused from challenging their arrest, questioning the "reasons to believe". We are concerned with violation of personal liberty, and the exercise of the power to arrest in accordance with law. Scrutiny of the action to arrest, whether in accordance with law, is amenable to judicial review. It follows that the "reasons to believe" should be furnished to the arrestee to enable him to exercise his right to challenge the validity of arrest. 42. We would accept that in a one-off case, it may not be feasible to reveal all material, including names of witnesses and details of documents, when the investigation is in progress. This will not be the position in most cases. DoE may claim redaction and exclusion of specific particulars and details. However, the onus to justify redaction would be on the DoE.

The officers of the DoE are the authors of the "reasons to believe" and can use appropriate wordings, with details of the material, as are necessary in a particular case. As there may only be a small number of cases where redaction is justified for good cause, this reason is not a good ground to deny the accused's access to a copy of the "reasons to believe" in most cases. Where the non-disclosure of the "reasons to believe" with redaction is justified and claimed, the court must be informed. The 1362 file, including the documents, must be produced before the court. Thereupon, the court should examine the request and if they find justification, a portion of the "reasons to believe" and the document may be withheld. This requires consideration and decision by the court. DoE is not the sole judge. 43. Section 173(6) of the Code, permits the police officer not to furnish statements or make disclosures to the accused when it is inexpedient in public interest.

In such an event, the police officer is to indicate the specific part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copy given to the accused. He has to state the reasons for making such request. The same principle will apply. " 33. Arvind Kejriwal (supra) also holds that the courts can judicially review the legality of arrest. This power of judicial review is inherent in Section 19 as the legislature has prescribed safeguards to prevent misuse. After all, arrests cannot be made arbitrarily on the whims and fancies of the authorities. This judicial review is permissible both before and after criminal proceedings or prosecution complaints are filed. 34. On the nature of "material" examined by the DoE, Arvind Kejriwal (supra) states that such "material" must be admissible before a court of law.

This is because the designated officer is required to arrive at a conclusion of guilt based on the "material" examined and such guilt can only be based on admissible evidence. The relevant portion reads: "47. DoE has drawn our attention to the use of the expression 'material in possession' in Section 19(1) of the PML Act instead of 'evidence in possession'. Though etymologically correct, this argument overlooks the requirement that the designated officer should and must, based on the material, reach and form an opinion that the arrestee is guilty of the offence under the PML Act. Guilt can only be established on admissible evidence to be led before the court, and cannot be based on inadmissible evidence. While there is an element of hypothesis, as oral evidence has not been led and the documents are to be proven, the decision to arrest should be rational, fair and Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others as per law.

Power to arrest under Section 19(1) is not for the purpose of investigation. Arrest can and should wait, and the power in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act can be exercised only when the material with the designated officer enables them to form an opinion, by recording reasons in writing that the arrestee is guilty. " 35. The investigating officer is also required to look at the whole material and cannot ignore material that exonerates the arrestee. A wrong application of law or arbitrary exercise of duty by the designated officer can lead to illegality in the process. The court can exercise judicial review to strike down such a decision. Referring to errors in the decision-making process, Arvind Kejriwal (supra) records how such errors can vitiate the judgment or decision of the statutory authority. The relevant portion reads: "67. Error in decision making process can vitiate a judgment/decision of a statutory authority.

In terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, a decision-making error can lead to the arrest and deprivation of liberty of the arrestee. Though not akin to preventive detention cases, but given the nature of the order entailing arrest - it requires careful scrutiny and consideration. Yet, at the same time, the courts should not go into the correctness of the opinion formed or sufficiency of the material on which it is based, albeit if a vital ground or fact is not considered or the ground or reason is found to be non-existent, the order of detention may fail. 68. In Centre for PIL v. Union of India, this Court observed that in judicial review, it is permissible to examine the question of illegality in the decision-making process. A decision which is vitiated by extraneous considerations can be set aside. Similarly, in Uttamrao Shivdas Jankhar v.

Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil, elaborating on the expression "decision making process", this Court held that judicial interference is warranted when there is no proper application of mind on the requirements of law. An error in the decision-making process crops up where the authority fails to consider a relevant factor and considers irrelevant factors to decide the issue. " 1364 36. On the extent of judicial review available with the court viz. "reasons to believe", it was held that judicial review cannot amount to a merits review. The exercise is confined to ascertain if, based upon "material" in possession of the DoE, the DoE had "reasons to believe" that the arrestee is guilty of an offence under the PML Act. The relevant portion reads: "44. We now turn to the scope and ambit of judicial review to be exercised by the court. Judicial review does not amount to a mini-trial or a merit review.

The exercise is confined to ascertain whether the "reasons to believe" are based upon material which 'establish' that the arrestee is guilty of an offence under the PML Act. The exercise is to ensure that the DoE has acted in accordance with the law. The courts scrutinize the validity of the arrest in exercise of power of judicial review. If adequate and due care is taken by the DoE to ensure that the "reasons to believe" justify the arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, the exercise of power of judicial review would not be a cause of concern. Doubts will only arise when the reasons recorded by the authority are not clear and lucid, and therefore a deeper and in-depth scrutiny is required. Arrest, after all, cannot be made arbitrarily and on the whims and fancies of the authorities. It is to be made on the basis of the valid "reasons to believe", meeting the parameters prescribed by the law.

In fact, not to undertake judicial scrutiny when justified and necessary, would be an abdication and failure of constitutional and statutory duty placed on the court to ensure that the fundamental right to life and liberty is not violated. " 37. On the different facets of judicial review available with the Court while examining the legality of arrests, Arvind Kejriwal (supra) states: "65. ... We have already referred to the contours of judicial review expounded in Padam Narain Aggarwal (supra), and Dr. Pratap Singh (supra). We have also referred to the principles of Wednesbury reasonableness. 66. In Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, this Court elaborated on the different facets of judicial review regarding subjective opinion or satisfaction. It was held that Radhika Agarwal v.

Union of India and Others the courts should not inquire into correctness or otherwise of the facts found except where the facts found existing are not supported by any evidence at all or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable man would say that the facts and circumstances exist. Secondly, it is permissible to inquire whether the facts and circumstances so found to exist have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. In simple words, the conclusion has to logically flow from the facts. If it does not, then the courts can interfere, treating the lack of reasonable nexus as an error of law. Thirdly, jurisdictional review permits review of errors of law when constitutional or statutory terms, essential for the exercise of power, are misapplied or misconstrued. Fourthly, judicial review is permissible to check improper exercise of power.

For instance, it is an improper exercise of power when the power is not exercised genuinely, but rather to avoid embarrassment or for wreaking personal vengeance. Lastly, judicial review can be exercised when the authorities have not considered grounds which are relevant or has accounted for grounds which are not relevant. " 38. Arvind Kejriwal (supra)