IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Cr. WJC No.2167 of 2024
(5.2.2025)
Ajay Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, through the Director & Ors. ... Respondents
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Section 19 – Petitioner assailing his arrest in connection with misappropriating the sand stocked at k-license site without issuance of e-transit challans, causing loss of revenue to the Government – Power to arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA is not for the purpose of investigation – Arrest can and should wait and the power in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA can be exercised only when the material with the designated officers enables them to form an opinion by recording reasons in writing that the arrestee is guilty – Section 19(1) thus, does not permit arrest only to conduct investigation – Conditions of Section 19(1) have to be satisfied Clauses A, C, D and E to Section 41(1)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., apart from other considerations may be relevant – Petitioner was arrested in connection with the case on the basis of a statement purportedly made by one Mithilesh Kumar who alleged the involvement taking into consideration the statement of Jag Narayan Singh, one of the Directors of M/s AMPL that he had a long family and business relationship with the petitioner and entire transaction between the petitioner and M/s AMPL was friendly transaction by way of loan – The said money is not proceeds of crime and there is absolutely no iota of evidence that the said money was used in sand mining business – There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity (here and scam) connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property – The documents filed by the petitioner, shows payment and receipt of money including an amount of Rs. 39 lakhs which was claimed to be projected as tainted money by the ED – The ED has failed to establish that it has reason to believe that petitioner is involved in concealment, or possession, or acquisition, or use, or projecting as untainted property or claiming as untainted property, as money obtained by M/s AMPL through illegal sand mining business – Thus, the statement containing "reason to believe" delivered by ED to petitioner does not contain satisfactory material to hold that the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA – In such view of the matter, petitioner's arrest is illegal and in violation of the safeguards contained in Section 19(1) of the PMLA – It is needless to say that any illegal detention is violative of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released. (Paras 65, 69, 70 to 83)
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410; Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 747; Common Cause/Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731 – Referred.
Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Cr. App. No. 2493 of 2024), dated 12.7.2024; Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, 2023 (6) BLJ 66 (SC) : (2024) 7 SCC 576; Abhishek Banerjee Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCR 110; Anoop Bartaria & etc. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 477; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2024 SC 169; Gautam Kundu Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 – Relied.
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for declaring the arrest of Petitioner on 28.09.2024 in connection with ECIR/PTZO/07/2022 dated 10.01.2022 read with Addendum ECIR dated 04.06.2023 and 09.11.2023 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, as wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature and in violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA")
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that since the arrest of the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement is illegal and in violation of section 19 of PMLA, the consequential orders of remand passed by Learned Special Court, PMLA, Patna dated 28.09.2024 and 05.10.2024 and all other future orders extending the remand of the Petitioner are also illegal.
(iii) To issue a further appropriate writ, order or direction for the forthwith release of the Petitioner from judicial custody.
(iv) This Hon'ble Court may award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the loss and damages caused on account of the illegal and arbitrary actions of the Respondent(s) Authorities.
(v) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The salient facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are as follows:—
One M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited (hereinafter described as “M/s AMPL” for short) was granted settlement of all sand quarries (Ghats) for extraction of sand in the district of Aurangabad and Rohtas during the period between 1st January, 2015 and 31st of December, 2019. The said settlement was time to time extended after it was initially granted for five years till 30th of September, 2021 by four separate grants. However, M/s AMPL surrendered its settlement on 30th of April, 2021 w.e.f. 1st of May, 2021. Initial dispute arose between Mines and Geological Department, Government of Bihar and M/s AMPL over payment of royalty for the surrendered period and also with respect of M/s AMPL entitlement to sell sand which was stocked at K-license sites, i.e., storage sites. The Mines and Geological Department cancelled the K-licenses obtained by M/s AMPL in the said two districts vide order, dated 17th of August, 2021 and 7th of July, 2021, respectively, and seized the sand stocked by M/s AMPL. Subsequent to the cancellation of license and seizure of sand, the officials attached to Mining Department lodged several F.I.R.s against M/s AMPL, alleging, inter alia, that it had misappropriated the sand stocked at K-license site without issuance of e-transit challans, causing loss of revenue to the Government. In all, 13 numbers of F.I.R. was registered against the said company and its Directors. On the basis of Dehri Nagar P. S. Case No. 407 of 2021, the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as “ED” for short) registered ECIR/PTZO/07/2022, dated 10th of January, 2022 for the scheduled offence allegedly committed by M/s AMPL and its Directors under Sections 411 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The basis of the aforesaid case registered by ED is that the de facto complainant of Dehri Nagar P. S. Case No. 407 of 2021 alleged that M/s AMPL has embazelled sand valued at Rs. 24,42,67,900/- stored at two different places vide two K-licences issued to it by District Mining Office, Rohtas. However, the properties were suspected to be proceeds of crime. It is further alleged that only 600000 cubic ft. of sand was to be extracted/stored in the sites in respect of which K-license were granted, but there was 7784350 cubic ft. of sand stored in the said sites as per the report provided by the Project Management Unit. It was also alleged that the authorized staff / Director of the license holder sold the sand stealthily without issuing any pre-paid challans and thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs. 24,42
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. C. Shukla
Sardul Singh Caveeshar vs. State of Bombay
Common Cause/Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal
Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement
Money Laundering – Power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of PMLA is not for the purpose of investigation – Arrest can and should wait and power in terms of Section 19(1) of PMLA can be exercised only ....
The court ruled that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful due to insufficient evidence linking him to illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Ac....
The necessity of providing documented 'reasons to believe' at the time of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA is a statutory requirement that must be adhered to for the arrest to be lawful.
Judicial review of PMLA arrests limited to procedural compliance; 'reasons to believe' under s.19 valid on prima facie material like seized assets, statements; no need for naming in predicate FIRs; o....
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's qualification under the triple test of Section 45 of the PMLA, the timing of the FIR registration, and the petitioner's health condition were....
The court established the statutory right of the enforcement agency to conduct further investigation and file subsequent complaints without seeking prior permission, as empowered by the provisions of....
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.