'Misused Official Position To Get Hefty Bribe', High Court Dismisses Former Punjab Forest Minister's Plea Challenging ED Arrest

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed former Punjab Forest Minister Sadhu Singh Dharmasot's plea challenging ED arrest, observing that he being a public servant, had misused his official position and got hefty amount in bribe during his tenure in 2017 to 2021.

Dharmasot was as an MLA for five consecutive terms since 1992 and was a Cabinet Minister from 2017 to 2021 in Punjab.

He was booked under Sections 7, 7A and 13(1)(A)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 120B of the IPC, pursuant to allegations of irregularities in Punjab's Forest Department (taking kickbacks to issue permits to cut trees, transfer officials, make purchases and issue no-objection certificates) and accumulating assets disproportionate to declared income during his tenure as state forest minister (between 2017 and 2022). Consequently an ECIR was lodged for the alleged scheduled offence.

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said,

"Petitioner is main kingpin of the criminal conspiracy, hatched in relation to illegalities committed in Forest Department; being a public servant, he had misused his official position and used to get hefty amount as well as undue benefits in the form of bribe from officials of Forest Department/Contractors for cutting of Khair Trees; transfer of Officers; issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs); purchase of Tree Guards; embezzlement in plantation drive; forgery in bogus expenses of fencing and levelling of hill area in District Mohali."

The Court noted that he purchased various immovable properties in his name as well as family members from proceeds of crime while projecting them as untainted.

"Petitioner as well as his family members have accumulated disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.6,39,18,292.39/- as proceeds of crime and utilized the same while projecting as untainted through various modes," the Court added.

The plea was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, for quashing of the impugned arrest order passed in January along with “grounds of arrest” passed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office.

As the alleged offences under PC Act were scheduled offences under PMLA, an ECIR was registered against Dharmasot on the basis of statements given by a Contract of the Forest Department. ED arrested Dharamsot in January, 2024 and after ED custody, he was sent to judicial custody.

The case was initially investigated and registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab. During the investigation by ED, it allegedly came forth that Dharamsot acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 6.34 crores through proceeds of crime relating to the scheduled offences.

After examining the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that records reveal that during the course of investigation, ED recorded the statements of various persons under Section 50 of PMLA and all of them deposed about the bribe paid to Dharamsot in lieu of cutting Khair trees, issuance of NOCs for new projects, posting of forest officials etc.

"They have also deposed about modus operandi in respect of various activities, which were allowed to be done after paying bribe to the petitioner to the tune of `1,65,00,000/- (approx.) during his tenure as Forest Minister," it noted.

The Court referred to statements of three persons recorded under Section 50 of PMLA who supported the allegations against Dharamsot including his PSO.

The Court opined that it is evident, prima facie, that Dharamsot, while holding the office of Forest Minister accumulated disproportionate assets.

Justice Sindhu highlighted that there is sufficient material available with the ED to the effect that Dharamsot and his family members are having deposits in their respective bank accounts, which is totally unaccounted for and would be examined during further investigation. 

"Even the wife of petitioner, namely, Sheela Devi as well as both his sons, namely, Gurpreet Singh & Harpreet Singh, were having no independent source of income, but purchased various moveable and immovable properties," said the Court.

Observing that Dharamsot was not cooperating in the matter, the Court said the Special judge rightly allowed the application of ED and granted remand in order to facilitate the investigation as well as to ascertain the role of other persons in the case.

The Court rejected the plea of senior counsel appearing for Dharamsot that Vigilance Bureau has concluded that some of the properties were purchased by him prior to 01.03.2016.

"At best, this may be a plea of defence, which could be raised during trial; but cannot be the basis for quashing “grounds of arrest” at this stage," said the bench.

In the light of the above, the Court opined that, "petitioner has acquired huge proceeds of crime and projected the same as untainted, which are being used by himself and/or his family member."

Consequently, the Court held that "no interference is warranted while exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing" of the arrest and remand orders passed by ED and Special Judge.

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, 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.

 Title: Sadhu Singh Dharamsot v. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India through Assistant Director, Jalandhar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 278

Click here to read/download the order