IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Illegal Mining Is Not a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Arrest of MLA Surender Panwar

26 September 2024 10:47 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the arrest of Haryana MLA Surender Panwar in a money laundering case linked to illegal mining. The court ruled that illegal mining is not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and found no grounds to sustain his arrest. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had implicated Panwar in the alleged illegal mining activities of Development Strategies India Pvt. Ltd. (DSPL), but the court held that Panwar had ceased to be a director of the company in 2013, well before the alleged offences took place.

The Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings against Surender Panwar, alleging his involvement in illegal mining and the laundering of proceeds of crime through DSPL. The case arose from multiple FIRs and an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) registered in 2023. Panwar, a sitting MLA from Sonipat, was arrested in July 2024 under the PMLA for his alleged role in illegal mining activities in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, linked to DSPL and a syndicate of mining companies. However, Panwar challenged the legality of his arrest and sought relief from the High Court.

Whether illegal mining could be prosecuted under the PMLA.

Whether Panwar's arrest and detention were legally valid, given the procedural safeguards under Section 19 of the PMLA.

The defense argued that illegal mining is not included in the list of scheduled offences under the PMLA, and thus, the prosecution under the PMLA was unwarranted. They further argued that Panwar had resigned as a director of DSPL in 2013, and there was no evidence linking him to the company's illegal activities during the relevant period. The defense also highlighted procedural violations, including the excessive and inhumane interrogation of Panwar and the lack of any incriminating evidence from the interrogation or searches.

The court agreed with the defense, ruling that illegal mining is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA. The court noted that while DSPL had been penalized by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental violations, this did not translate into a money laundering offence under the PMLA. The court emphasized that the ED had failed to produce any material to show Panwar's involvement in the alleged offences after 2013, when he ceased to be a director of DSPL.

In a significant observation, the court found that the amendment to the PMLA in August 2024, which removed environmental violations from the list of scheduled offences, further weakened the case against Panwar. The court criticized the ED for subjecting Panwar to prolonged interrogation and harassment, stating that the 14-hour-long interrogation violated basic human dignity and the right to fair treatment.

The court also cited the principle of "Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus"—once the foundation of the case is removed, the superstructure falls—to rule that the remand orders following Panwar's arrest were also unsustainable in law. The court further referenced the Supreme Court's rulings on the need for concrete evidence to justify an arrest under the PMLA, concluding that Panwar’s arrest lacked legal merit.

The High Court quashed the arrest order, remand orders, and "grounds of arrest" against Surender Panwar, and directed his immediate release. The judgment underscored that Panwar's arrest, based on unscheduled offences and a lack of material evidence, was unlawful.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2024

Surender Panwar v. Directorate of Enforcement​.

Latest Legal News