SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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