Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Singh Dharamsot vs Directorate Of Inforcement Deptt on 20 September, 2024
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479
CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M
M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.09.2024
Sadhu Singh Dharamsot
... Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India
through Assistant Director, Jalandhar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Mr. Himmat Singh Deol,
Mr. Dharam Pal, Mr. Arun Kaundal, Mr. Randeep S. Bains,
Mr. Sumer Singh Boperai,
Boperai, Mr. Arun Goyat& Mr. Karan Kalia,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagjot Singh Lalli, Dy. Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel &
Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Crimianl Procedure, 1973 (for ( short 'Cr.P.C.)) for grant of bail pending trial to -1- 1 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) the petitioner in ECIR/JLZO/12/2023 dated 29.03.2023 (P (P-10) (COMA--
03/2024 dated 14.03.2024) [for [for short 'ECIR N No.12'], ], under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA'),, registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, Jalandhar (for short 'E.D.').
(2) BRIEF FACTS:-
FACTS:
(2.1) Initially, an FIR No.6 dated 02.06.2022
02.06.2022,, under Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, as amended vide Amendment Act, 2018 (for for short 'P.C. Act') Act' and Section 120-B B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), 'IPC') Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad Squad-1, Punjab, ab, District SAS Nagar at Mohali was registered at the instance of de facto complainant-Davinder Davinder Singh Sandhu against Gurmanpreet Singh, District Forest Officer & Harmohinder Singh @ Hummy, Contractor of the Forest Department.
(2.2) During investigation, investigation, the statement of aforesaid Harmohinder Singh @ Hummy was recorded by the police and a diary was also recovered from him in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The alleged diary has the details of cutting of Khair Trees, transfer of Officers, amount of bribe allegedly paid to petitioner (former Forest Minister); issuance of NOCs; purchase of Tree Guards; embezzlement in plantation drive; forgery in bogus expenses of fencing; levelling of hill area in District Mohali and illegal mining etc. -2- 2 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (2.3) On the basis of above statement of Harmohinder Singh @ On Hummy, coupled with the diary recovered from him, another FIR No.7 dated 06.06.2022,, under Sections 7, 7-A, 7 A, 13 (1) (a) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act & Section 120-B 120 of IPC, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, 1, Punjab, District S.A.S. Nagar at Mohali [for for short 'FIR No.7 of 2022'] was registered against total 09 accused, including present petitioner, who happens to be former Forest Minister, Punjab. (2.4) Vide order dated 05.09.2022 (P-
(P-1),
1), petitioner was granted bail pending trial by the Coordinate Bench in CRM CRM-M-34718-2022 2022 (FIR No.7 of 2022).
(2.5) The contents of aforesaid FIR Nos.6 & 7 of 2022 were scrutinized by the E.D.; thereafter, ECIR/JLZO/11/2022 dated 15.07.2022 15.07.2022(P--
4)(for (for short 'ECIR No.11') No.11') was recorded by the E.D. against petitioner and other co-accused, accused, for further investigation into the matter under the provisions of PMLA.
(2.6) Subsequently, another FIR No.6 dated 06.02.2023 06.02.2023,, under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act (Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B 120 B of IPC added later on), Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-I, Squad I, Punjab at District SAS Nagar (Mohali) [[for for short 'FIR No.6 of 2023'] 2023'] was registered against the petitioner levelling allegations that while conducting inquiry No.1 dated 05.08.2022 against him regarding disproportionate assets beyond his income for the check period from -3- 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2022, total amount of ` 2,37,12, 2,37,12,596.48/- was found to be the income of petitioner along with his family members from the known sources; whereas their total expenditure comes to ` 8,76,30,888.87/-.
(2.7) During this th check period, excess amount of ` 6,39,18,292.39/-- was allegedly found, which comes to 269% of their total income. The petitioner being a public servant is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. (2.8) In FIR No.6 of 2023, petitioner has been named along with othe otherr unknown persons and there are specific allegations against him. The contents of same read as under:-
under:
"F.I.R. No.06 dated 06.02.2023 That while conducting enquiry no. 01 dated 05 05-08-2022 Mohali against Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, former Forest Minister, Punjab regarding disproportionate assets beyond his income, the chart of income/expenditure for the check period from 01-03-2016 to 31-03 03-2022 has been prepared. As per enquiry, total income of Rs. 2,37,12,596 2,37,12,596-48 and total expenditure of Rs. 8,76,30,888 8,76,30,888-87 of Sh.Sadhu Singh Dharamsot former Forest Minister, Punjab and his family members during this period has been found. Thus during this check period the expenditure of excess amount of Rs.6,39,18,292-39 39 has been found which comes to 269% of his income. Sh. Sadhu Singh Dharamsot former Forest Minister, Punjab being a public servant has committed offence u/s 13 (1) (B) r/w 13 (2) P.C. Act 1988 as amended by P.C. (Amendment) Act 2018. Case has been registered under these offences."-4-
4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (2.9) In pursuance of aforesaid FIR No.6 of 2023 2023, petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2023 and later on, released on regular bail vide order dated 17.05.2023 (P--3),
3), passed by the Coordinate Bench in CRM CRM-M-15025-2023.
After scrutinizing the contents of above FIR by the E.D., it was found that offences under Section 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act are falling within the definition of "scheduled "scheduled offence offence"" as envisaged under Section 2(y) of the PMLA and covered under Part A of the Schedule thereof. As a result of the above, ECIR No.12was recorded by the E.D. against petitioner for further investigation into the matter under the provisions of PMLA. Hence, the present petition. (3) CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PETITIONER:-
(3.1) Learned Senior Counsel contends that earlier FIR No.7 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner and in the same, he was granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 05.09.2022, passed in CRM CRM-M--
34718-2022. He has been implicated under tthe he similar Sections of the P.C. Act and the allegations of FIR No.6 of 2023 could have been investigated in the previous case bearing FIR No.7 of 2022.
(3.2) Further contends that FIR No.6 of 2023 has been registered during check period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2022, alleging income of the petitioner along with family members was ` 2,37,12,596.48/- and their expenditure was ` 8,76,30,888.87/-;; therefore, petitioner during the aforesaid check period had spent excess amount of ` 6,39,18,292.39/ 6,39,18,292.39/-.-5-
5 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (3.3) Also contends that this excess expenditure on the basis of which, Vigilance Bureau has registered FIR No.6 of 2023 is nothing; but merely based upon three plots; out of which, two are in the name names of petitioner's both sons, namely, Harpreet Singh & Gurpreet Singh;
Singh; whereas third plot is in the name of his wife-Sheela wife Devi, which had already been sold in the year 2022. (3.4) Again contends that a complaint under Section 45 read with Section 44 of PMLA for commission of offence for money laundering under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA PMLA, was instituted by the E.D. on the basis of FIR No.6 of 2023 registered by Vigilance Bureau. Petitioner was arrested on the same very day i.e. 06.02.2023 and he was granted bail pending trial by the Coordinate Be Bench nch vide order dated 17.05.2023 (P--3) in CRM-M-15025-2023. (3.5) Yet again contends that now-a-days, now days, E.D. has adopted pick pick-and--
choose policy by singling out the petitioner out of 16 accused challaned in earlier FIRs, including another former Forest Minist Minister-Sangat Sangat Singh Gilzian and other senior Forest Officers.
(3.6) Further contends that even in the present FIR No.6 of 2023, E.D. has registered ECIR No.12 against the petitioner solely. It is nothing; but an outcome of political vendetta as out of 16 co-
co-accused, accused, who were challaned in FIR No.7 of 2022 (predicate offence), offence), now only the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.6 of 2023 as well as in ECIR No.12. -6-
6 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (3.7) Still further contends that although ECIR No.11 was registered on 15.07.2022, but no summons summon under Section 50 of PMLA was sent to the petitioner for a period of nearly one-and-a-half half year till 08.01.2024, which clearly depicts the mala fide practice, adopted by the E.D. (3.8) Vehemently contends that petitioner was summoned on two occasions in ECIR No.12; he had appeared and cooperated with E.D. each time. He hass even supplied copies of all documents documents,, including details of movable & immovable properties, assets in India as well as abroad abroad,, FDRs, mutual funds, shares, LIC policies, loans etc., maintained by him aandhis his family members along with ITRs from 2015-2016 2015 2016 on onwards.
(3.9) Forcefully contends that the E.D. has completely failed to identify any money or single property having been obtained through proceeds of crime in ECIR No.12, except property already identified by Vigilance Bureau in ECIR No.11. Meaning thereby, thereby, E.D. just to satisfy itself is running two parallel ECIRs, ECIRs having the full knowledge that petitioner has already been granted bail in two separate FIRs (alleged to be predicate offences) by the Co Co--
ordinate Benches.
(3.10) Further contends that E.D. has not arrested the petitioner in the present ECIR No.12 till date. Even though, they have filed separate complaint bearing COMA-3-2024 COMA (P-11)
11) in ECIR No.12 on 14.03.2024 (P (P-12).
(3.11) Lastly contends that learned Special Judge vide order dated 15.03.2024 (P--13)
13) took cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner as -7- 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) well as his two sons, namely, Gurpreet Singh & Harpreet Singh for commission of offence underSection 3,, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. However, since the petitioner was already in custody in ECIR No.11, learned Special Judge had no other option; but to issue non non-bailable bailable warrants dated 15.03.2024 against the petitioner and co-
co-accused (his two sons).
(4) CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
CONTENTIONS RESPONDENT:- (4.1) Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner in FIR No.6 of 2023 as well as in ECIR No.12 regarding disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income when he was holding the Office of Forest Minister in the Government of Punjab. That while conducting inquiry No.1 dated 05.08.2022 against petitioner regarding disproportionate income and expenditure, it came out that his income along with his family family members for the check period from 01.03.2016 to 31.03.2022, was ` 2,37,12,596.48/ 2,37,12,596.48/-;; whereas their total expenditure was ` 8,76,30,888.87/-. Petitioner etitioner being a public servant has committed the offence under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, leading to proceeds of crime, resulting into laundering of money. (4.2) Further submits that the contents of complaint filed by the E.D. clearly depict that various immovable properties and moveable assets were purchased by petitioner as well as his family members, whereas both of his sons were having no independent source of income, leading to disproportionate assets to the tune of ` 6,39,18,292.39/ 6,39,18,292.39/-.
-8- 8 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (4.3) Also submits that after recording statements of various persons and collecting sufficient material against the petitioner, aforesaid ECIR No.12 was registered. During investigation, investigation, many persons were summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA. Thereafter, a complaint bearing No.COMA No.COMA-3-2024 2024 dated 14.03.2024 .03.2024 has been filed before learned Special Judge, whereby there are sufficient reasons to believe that petitioner is guilty of money laun laundering;
dering;
hence, the contention regarding pick-and-choose pick choose policy is unsubstantiated. (4.4) Again submits that as recorded in ECIR No.11, petitioner is the main kingpin in the 'Forest Scam',, who is also involved in collecting bribe money from various Contractors Contractors as well as unknown sources, leading to laundering of money. The contention of petitioner that the present case is only an outcome of political vendetta is baseless as the investigation is being conducted thoroughly;
thoroughly; multiple searches were/are conduc conducted ted under Section 17 of PMLA against all the suspected individuals.
Though in FIR No.6 of 2023, petitioner is solely named as an accused along with other unknown persons; whereas the complaint bearing COMA-3-2024, 2024, filed before learned Special Judge by tthe he E.D., includes both his sons, namely, Gurpreet Singh & Harpreet Singh. The allegation of petitioner that he is being unfairly targetted is without any merit as efforts made by the Investigating Agency are comprehensive and extended to all individuals, who ho are involved in money laundering in the present case. -9-
9 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (4.5) Yet again submits that onthe basis of both FIRs, two separate ECIRs; one related to 'Forest Scam' and another related to 'Disproportionate isproportionate Assets' have been recorded. In ECIR No.11, the petitioner was found to have received bribe money; whereas in ECIR No.12, he was found to have accumulated assets disproportionate to his known source sources of income.
It is very much evident that in parallel investiga investigations, tions, conducted in both the ECIRs, it is found that the accumulation of bribe money by the petitioner and the purchase of assets in his name along with family members were almost during the same check period.
Also revealed that in ECIR No.12, petitione petitionerr had purchased assets in the name of his family members, who apparently have no independent source of income.
(4.6) Lastly submits that highly dubious credit transactions were found in the bank accounts of his family members and the same were arranged by the petitioner either by way of misusing his official capacity or by adjustments of cash.
The assets, so acquired by the petitioner, were eventually attached by way of provisional Attachment Order in ECIR No.12 and prayer has been made for confiscation of the same in the complaint filed by the E.D. (5) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper paper--
book.
-10-
10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) (6) Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 19 of PMLA, PMLA which reads as under:-
"19. Power to arrest.(1)If If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (that reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
(2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession,, referred to in that sub sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner, as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed.
(3)Every Every person arrested under sub sub-section (1) shall, within twenty-four four hours, be taken to a Special Court or Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction:
Provided that the period of twenty wenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Special Court or Magistrates Court.
Court."
(6.1) Concededly, in the present case, there is no order of arrest and/or or grounds of arrest served upon the petitioner in terms of Section 19 of PMLA PMLA;;
nor it is the case of E.D. that they have complied with the mandatory -11- 11 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) provisions of Section 19 (ibid).
( Therefore, herefore, in such a scenario, it cannot be accepted that petitioner was arrested by the E.D. in ECIR No.12 under the PMLA.
(6.2) Although, E.D. has tried to justify the arrest on the premise that petitioner himself made an application under Sections 207 & 208 of the Cr.P.C. on 18.03.2024 before learned Special Judge to supply the copy of complaint,, filed by E.D. in ECIR No.12 and the same was allowed by learned Special Judge on the same day i.e. 18.03.2024 (P (P-14) while issuingproduction production warrants of the petitioner for 19.03.2024.
But in the opinion of this Court, mere issuance of production warrants by learned learned Special Judge on asking of the petitioner cannot be construed that he was arrested in ECIR No.12 under the PMLA, especially when there was neither any order of arrest; nor grounds of arrest were served upon the petitioner by E.D. in terms of Section 19 19, thereof.
(6.3) A fortiori, fortiori it is well settled that when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the things must be done in that way or not at all. Reference in this regard can be made to the following judicial precedents:
precedents:-
(i) In 'Taylor Versus Taylor', (1875) 1 Ch. D. 426 426, it was held that 'when when a statutory power is conferred for the first time upon a Court, and the mode of exercising it is pointed out, it means that no other mode is to be adopted'.
(ii) In Nazir Ahmad Versus ersus K Emperor, 63 Indian Appeals 372, it was observed that 'where a power is -12-
12 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden forbidden'.
(iii) Similarly, in BabuVerguese VergueseVersus Bar Council of Kerala, (1999)) 3 SCC 422 422, it was laid down that 'it is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all'.
(iv)) Likewise, in Dhanajaya Reddy ReddyVersus State of Karnataka, 2001 (4) SCC 99, it was held that 'it is settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all'. In the present case,, there remains no doubt that petitioner was never arrested in ECIR No.12 by the E.D. (6.4) Apart that, there there is no dispute that complaint in ECIR No.12 had been filed on 14.03.2024 and cognizance was as taken on 15.03.2024 by learned Special Judge;therefore,, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, titled as 'Tarsem ' Lal Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office', (2024) 7 SCC 61, 61 petitioner has a right to be released on bail under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. on furnishing shing bail/ bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Judge unless the arrest is ordered by learned -13- 13 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124479 CRM-M No.16895 of 2024 (O&M) Special Judge after recording its satisfaction on the basis of a request made by the E.D. (7) In view of the discussions made hereinabove hereinabove, there is no option except to o allow the present petition.
(8) Ordered accordingly. (9) Petitioner be admitted to bail pending trial in the present caseon
his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Special Judge concerned.
c (10) Petitioner shall fully co-operate co operate with the learned trial Court/Special Judge without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. (11) Needless to say that the observations, made above, be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the controversy in any manner.
(12) It is clarified that in case there is any misuse of concession of bail on the part of petitioner, E.D. would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.
Pending application(s), if any, any, shall also stand disposed off.
20th September, 2024 ( MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU )
Gagan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
-14-
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 23:18:20 :::