The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently slammed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for interrogating an accused for 14 hours and 40 minutes at a stretch before his arrest in a money laundering case [Surender Panwar vs Directorate of Enforcement].
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said such an act was not heroic on part of the ED and called for sensitisation of the central agency’s officers.
“As per the case of E.D itself, petitioner was issued notice/summons under Section 50 of PMLA and in pursuance thereof, he duly appeared in the Zonal Office of E.D at Gurugram on 19.07.2024 at 11:00 a.m and he was constantly interrogated uptill 1:40 a.m (20.07.2024) for 14 hours and 40 minutes, which is not heroic on the part of E.D; rather it is against the dignity of a human being. For future, in view of the mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court is observing that Directorate of Enforcement shall take remedial measures and sensitize the officers to follow some reasonable time limit for investigation in one go against the suspect(s) in such like cases,” observed the Court.
The Court further called for necessary mechanism to be put in place for fair investigation of the accused as per basic human rights laid down by the United Nations instead of meting out unnecessary harassment.
The observations were made by Justice Sindhu while setting aside the arrest of Congress party candidate Surender Panwar. Panwar, who was a Director of Development Strategies (India) or DSPL, was arrested by the ED in July in a case related to illegal mining. He is contesting the upcoming election in Haryana from Sonepat.
The Court said while ED has tried to implicate Panwar on the premise that he is a Director of the DSPL, the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs clearly indicates he ceased to be the Director in November 2013.
“It is specifically observed that ED has not placed on record any material to the contrary in this regard. As the Director Master Information (P-8) is a public document, therefore, it would be per se admissible, unless proved otherwise. As already observed, ED has failed to show any material to the contrary in this regard; thus, there is no hesitation to observe that with effect from November 07, 2013, petitioner has ceased to be the Director of DSPL,” it added.
The Court also said that even if NGT had imposed a penalty of ₹2.5 Crore against DSPL in 2022, the same will not make Panwar liable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
It further noted that the NGT order was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2023, subject to payment of 60% of the penalty.
The Court also said that illegal mining in itself is not a scheduled offense under PMLA.
“Hence, prima facie, petitioner cannot be prosecuted on that count,” it opined.
Thus, the Court said that prima facie, there was no material with the ED to substantiate that Panwar had directly or indirectly indulged in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
Hence, it quashed Panwar's arrest and ordered his immediate release.
Senior Advocate RS Cheema with advocates Tanu Bedi, Sanjay Suri, Arshdeep Singh Cheema and Satish Sharma represented the petitioner
Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang represented the ED.
[Read Judgment]