Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Ex-MLA Dilbag Singh's Plea Challenging ED's Provisional Attachment Order In Illegal Mining Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Indian National Lok Dal's former MLA Dilbagh Singh and others, challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) passed by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with money laundering allegations in an illegal mining case.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal opined that the PAO complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 5(1) of PMLA which allows the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director to temporarily attach the property after recording 'reasons to believe'.
Perusing the impugned PAO passed on 09.08.2024, the Court said that it is evident that the Deputy Director has passed the impugned order after recording 'reasons to believe' in writing on the basis of material in his possession. "An elaborate order has been passed by recording sufficient and detailed reasons," added the Court.
It noted further that the team of ED carried out search of the petitioner's premises between 04 to 08 January, resulting in recovery of INR 5.29 Crores, gold worth Rs.1.89 crore, fake e-Rawana bills, blank signed cheques and various dummy entries including GM company to route the cash proceeds by layering such money into personal accounts, to give it the colour of legitimate money.
The bench pointed that the order also refers to large scale illegal mining by using heavy machinery to mine boulders, gravel, sand being carried out during the odd hours while diverting the flow of Yamuna river, despite being banned by the National Green Tribunal.
The Court opted that "the 'PAO' has fulfilled the mandatory requirement of recording the 'reasons to believe'. This is only a provisional attachment order, which is subject to adjudication and confirmation within a period of 180 days by the competent authority in which opportunity has been provided to the petitioner."
Dilbag Singh is accused under Section 120B, 420 IPC and Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. In the subsequent FIR that has been registered pursuant to the search carried out by the Enforcement Directorate, Court said "substantial material" was found to prima facie establish the allegations.
After examining the submissions, the Court said that counsel for petitioner is not factually correct while contending that 'PAO' does not refer to any material to remotely suggest the petitioner's involvement.
It observed that a careful reading of PAO shows that Dilbag Singh along with his brothers and various more accomplices was prima facie involved.
No Consequence Of Not Sending PAO Immediately To Adjudicating Authority
The Court said that the argument with respect to the failure of the Enforcement Directorate to immediately forward the impugned PAO along with the material in its possession to the adjudicating authority cannot be accepted because the PAO was passed on Friday evening i.e. 09.08.2024. On 10.08.2024 and 11.08.2024, the offices were closed on account of holidays.
The POA along with the material in possession was forwarded to the adjudicating authority by Enforcement Directorate on 12.08.2024, noted the Court
Referring to Rao Mahmod Ahmed v. Ranbir Khan (1995), the Court said the word 'immediately' and 'forthwith' were treated as synonyms. Moreover, if failure to follow the statutory provision provides no express consequences, the procedural requirement shall be considered to be directory.
In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate
Ms. Advocates Shifali Goyal, Vinay Arya, Ritvik Garg and Himanshu Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Lokesh Narang, Advocate for the respondents
Title: DILBAG SINGH @ DILBAG SANDHU v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS