PMLA | Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail To Man Booked For Benefitting "Just Rs. 50K" In Land Allotment, Says No Allegation Of Money Laundering

Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man accused of benefitting during village land allotment by revenue official observing that "the benefit which the petitioner took was just Rs.50,000 it would be a perversity of justice it this court continues further pre-trial incarceration".

The bench also noted that there is no allegation of money laundering against the Petitioner.

ED opposed bail citing the express bar under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA). For context, Section 45 of PMLA prescribes twin conditions before a person can be granted bail. The first condition is that the Public Prosecutor has been allowed to oppose the application. In the present case, not only was proper opportunity given, but they filed a reply, and their counsel was heard. 

The second condition is that where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that regarding the second condition, although there is evidence of the petitioner taking the benefit of Rs.50,000, by giving a power of attorney for the transfer of his 2400 shares in the shamlat land which in fact he never had, he is also in custody for 03 months to benefitting a sum of Rs.50,000.

The Court further added that in the present case there is no allegation of money laundering except receiving the financial benefit of Rs. 50,000 as such, petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the proviso to S. 45(1) of PMLA.

Adding that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2023 in the present case, the Court said, "considering the custody of more than 03 months and the benefit which the petitioner took was just Rs.50,000 it would be a perversity of justice it this court continues further pre-trial incarceration."

The accused Hartej Singh was booked under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA and Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7, 7-A of PC Act.

It was alleged that there was a massive scam relating to allotment of the land, in which the petitioner signed without having any authority as another person on General Power of Attorney, giving rights of land to one Ram Krishan. 

"Out of a massive scam of Rs.17 crores. the main accused got the benefit of around Rs.15.73 crores, involving unexplained money of around Rs.8 crores, and the benefit the petitioner got was just Rs.50.000, Arrested for this violation and consequent illicit money, the petitioner has been in custody since 08.09.2023, i.e., for more than three months," noted the Court.

The Court compared the stringent provision of Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act], is identical to S. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 PMLA.

The only difference is that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is much more stringent than Section 45 of PMLA because Section 37 attracts when the quantity is commercial. When the minimum sentence that the courts can impose cannot is ten years.

However, Section 45 of PMLA applies entirely to all offences, but under Section 4 of the PMLA Act, the minimum sentence prescribed is three years and a maximum of ten years which makes it lenient compared to the application of similar provisions to the offences under the NDPS Act. Thus, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to cases where the minimum sentence is ten years, contrary to the minimum three in PMLA.

Considering that the amount attributed to the petitioner is Rs. 50,000 and there is no allegation of money laundering except receiving the financial benefit of Rs. 50,000, as such, the Court opined that he is also entitled to the benefit of the proviso to S. 45(1) of PMLA.

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea. 

Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitoner.

Shiva Khurmi, A.A.G., Punjab.

Satya Pal Jain, Additonal Solicitor General of India with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel, for UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 01

Case Title: Hartej Singh v. State of Punjab and another

Click here to read/download the order