he Punjab and Haryana High Court held that non-forwarding of seized material as early as possible is Violative of the mandatory provision under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act, 2002).
8 FIRs were registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar, District Haryana against petitioner Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu. The FIRs were registered under Sections 120-B, 411, 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC, which are scheduled offences under Part A Paragraph I of the Schedule appended to The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“the 2002 Act), the Directorate of Enforcement recorded an ECIR against various accused persons, Screen Plants and Stone Crushers to investigate the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the 2002 Act.
A search was carried out from the residential premises of the petitioner Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu and Rajinder Singh, located at 410, Friends Colony, Yamuna Nagar and another search was also carried out at the premises of petitioner Kulwinder Singh, House No.62, Sector 14, HUDA, Yamuna Nagar. It was the case of the petitioners that they were illegally detained/arrested on 04.01.2024. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu was arrested on 08.01.2024 at 12.15 PM.
It was further stated that petitioner Dilbag Singh @ Dilbag Sandhu had willfully adopted an attitude of non-cooperation by either evading the queries or giving misleading/part evasive replies. Similarly, as per the case of the prosecution, the grounds of arrest in writing were given to the petitioner Kulwinder Singh on 08.01.2024, in which also, the above-said background was given and thereafter, it was stated that the said Kulwinder Singh through his relatives and close persons was also involved in the said mining activities.
On 09.01.2024, both the petitioners were produced before the Special Court ( PMLA ) Gurugram, Haryana and two separate applications were filed by respondent No.2, under Section 65 of the 2002 Act read with Section 167 of the CrPC seeking remand of the petitioners, in which, vide two separate orders dated 09.01.2024, seven days custody of both the petitioners were granted to the Enforcement Directorate by the Special Judge, Gurugram.
Both the petitioners were produced before the Special Court ( PMLA ) Gurugram, Haryana for extension of custody of both the petitioners and two separate applications were filed on 16.01.2024 under Section 65 of 2002 Act read with Section 167 of the CrPC for the said purpose. The Special Judge (PMLA), Gurugram, extended the remand custody of both the petitioners for a further period of 7 days.
Counsel for the petitioners has first submitted that as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the 2002 Act, the concerned officer immediately after arresting the accused persons under Sub-Section (1) of the said Section is required to forward a copy of the order along with material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope in the manner which may be prescribed and the said Adjudicating Authority is required to keep the said order and the material for such period as may be prescribed.
It was submitted that the entire procedure has been provided under Rules 3 and 4 and the said provisions read along with Section 19(2) of the 2002 Act would clearly show that the copy of the order of arrest and the material is to be supplied to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after arresting the person concerned.
A single bench of Justice Vikas Bahl observed that there is total non-compliance of Section 19(2) since there is neither any reference to the compliance of the said provision in the application under Section 65 of the 2002 Act read with Section 167 CrPC filed by the respondent authorities seeking custody of the petitioners to the Directorate of Enforcement nor is there any such mention of its compliance in the grounds of arrest, in the personal search memo, arrest memo, arrest order or even panchnama.
The Court observed that “the Court required to have specifically recorded in the order the fact that the provisions of Sections 19(1), 19(2) and 19(3) have been duly complied with and that the Court had perused the written reasons to believe, as mandated under Section 19(1) of the 2002 Act and was satisfied that it had been so recorded therein that the petitioners were guilty of the offence punishable under the Act and that the said order along with the material had been forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority and also that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Court at Gurugram and the same having not been done in the present case calls for setting aside the impugned orders/action of the respondent authorities on the said ground alone.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
