Table of Contents
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that interrogation by the ED (Enforcement Directorate) for about 14 hours and 40 minutes is not heroic, rather it is against human rights.
The bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu has observed that as per the case of ED itself, petitioner was issued notice/summons under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and in pursuance of, he duly appeared in the Zonal Office of E.D at Gurugram on 19.07.2024 at 11:00 a.m and he was constantly interrogated uptill 1:40 a.m (20.07.2024) for 14 hours and 40 minutes, which is not heroic on the part of E.D; rather it is against the dignity of a human being.
“For future, in view of the mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court is observing that Directorate of Enforcement shall take remedial measures and sensitize the officers to follow some reasonable time limit for investigation in one go against the suspect in such like cases. To be precise, , it would be appreciated if some necessary mechanism is put in place for fair investigation of the accused as per basic human rights laid down by the United Nations Organization (UNO), instead of meting out unnecessary harassment, for such a longer duration at one stretch for a given day,” the court said.
Background
In the intervening night of 19/20.07.2024 at 01.40 a.m, petitioner was arrested in the Zonal Office, Enforcement Directorate (E.D), Gurugram.
The entire case of E.D is based on “illegal mining” by fabricating e-rawana bills. In the first eight FIRs, the petitioner was not an accused. In 9th FIR also, he has not been named. Rather E.D has tried to implicate him on the premise that he is the Director of DSPL, but there is no material to substantiate that petitioner is either the Director of said company; or a person in-charge of the affairs of the company.
On the basis of discreet enquiries, investigation and material in possession, search under section 17 of PMLA, 2002 was carried out on various identified entities & Directors/ Promoters/ Employees/Key persons and others and concluded, which resulted in recovery of various incriminating documents, digital devices, valuables and other items.
The petitioner was neither named in the alleged 08 FIRs on the basis of which present ECIR is registered; nor is he named in the subsequent 09th FIR.
There was no specific role attributed to the petitioner in dealing with proceeds of crime while seeking remand by E.D before learned Special Judge.
The petitioner submitted that ED has adopted pick-and-choose policy while arresting the petitioner in ECIR, as there are various accused in the present case. However, the E.D has chosen to arrest the petitioner as well as co-accused Dilbag Singh and Kulwinder Singh. The remaining co-accused are at large and the ED is just after the petitioner only due to the reason that he is a sitting member of Legislative Assembly from Sonipat Constituency and the elections for the same are forthcoming. Therefore the timing of arrest is nothing, but an outcome of political vendetta.
Arguments – Whether 14 hours interrogation by ED Valid?
The petitioner while emphasising on the word “may” occurring in Section 19(1) of the PMLA, contended that the officer authorised under the PMLA, on the basis of “material in his possession” and “reasons to believe” (recorded in writing) that any person is guilty of an offence punishable under PMLA, “may” arrest such person and shall as soon as may be, inform him the grounds for such arrest.
In other words, the arrest under the PMLA is not mandatory; the word ‘may” includes may not also. So, it should not be interpreted as “shall”; therefore, under the PMLA, arrest is not mandatory in every case. The arrest under the PMLA has been kept at a very high pedestal and it has to be treated as a last resort and not at the whims and fancies of E.D.
The petitioner contended that there was no occasion for arrest of the petitioner as he was fully cooperating and appearing on each and every occasion pursuant to the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA.
The ED contended that there is sufficient material in the form of documents and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA which shows the reasonable nexus between the petitioner and other co-accused companies making a syndicate, being indulged in the “illegal mining” leading to proceeds of crime.
The ED stated that there is sufficient compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA as there was material in possession of the E.D along with “reasons to believe” as well as “grounds of arrest”. The arrest order along with “grounds of arrest” were duly supplied to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. The material in possession was duly sent to the Adjudicating Authority within the stipulated time.
Conclusion
The court held that the arrest order as well as “grounds of arrest” issued by E.D; remand orders passed by Special Judge, Ambala against the petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside being indefensible in law.
The court, while allowing the petition, directed that the petitioner be released if not required in any other case.
FAQs
How long interrogation by ED?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surender Panwar V/S Directorate of Enforcement held that interrogation by the ED (Enforcement Directorate) for about 14 hours and 40 minutes is not heroic, rather it is against human rights.
Case Laws on long interrogation by ED?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surender Panwar V/S Directorate of Enforcement held that in view of the mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court is observing that Directorate of Enforcement shall take remedial measures and sensitize the officers to follow some reasonable time limit for investigation in one go against the suspect in such like cases. To be precise, , it would be appreciated if some necessary mechanism is put in place for fair investigation of the accused as per basic human rights laid down by the United Nations Organization (UNO), instead of meting out unnecessary harassment, for such a longer duration at one stretch for a given day.
Case Details
Case Title: Surender Panwar V/S Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: CRM M-41194-2024 (O&M)
Counsel for the Petitioner: R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, ED
Date of Decision: 23.09.2024
