Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses AAP MLA Jaswant Singh’s Plea Challenging His Arrest In Money Laundering Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Punjab’s MLA Jaswant Singh from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) challenging his arrest and all subsequent remand orders.
Jaswant Singh, an elected member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Amargarh Constituency, Malerkotla submitted that he had been arrested in contravention of the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the PMLA’).
The Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh observed, “In view of the aforenoted facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the arrest of the petitioner is in consonance with Section 19 (1) of the PMLA and we do not find any manifest illegality in the orders of remand and subsequent proceedings…Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which stands dismissed.”
Senior Advocates Randeep S. Rai, Anand Chhibber and Vikram Chaudhari appeared for the Petitioner while Add. Solicitor General Satyapal Jain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang appeared for the Respondents.
The Court concerning the argument that there is a violation of Section 19(1) of PMLA, has said “The argument is liable to be rejected because it is not specified that information has to be sent on the day the arrest is effected. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the same being sent to the Adjudicating Authority a day after. Even if it has been sent after 02 days, it could not be said that the provisions of Section 19(2) of the PMLA have not been complied with. The expression ‘as soon as possible’ in relation to the communication of the grounds of arrest have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) to be within 24 hours of the arrest but there is no such mandate for sending the material to the Adjudicating Authority the same day or within 24 hours. Therefore, it is difficult for this court to arrive at the conclusion that sending material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority after a day or two would not be a sufficient compliance of Section 19(2) of the PMLA.”
The allegations against him were that he was a Director and guarantor of M/s TCL which also comprised of his other family members. The company had obtained loans and credit facilities for a sum of over Rs.46 crores and this amount was alleged to have been diverted to other companies contrary to the terms and conditions of extending the credit facilities. A sum of Rs. 3.12 crores is also stated to have been diverted into the personal account of Singh as well. The account of the company was declared as a fraud in 2018 based on a forensic audit report, and the matter was reported to the Reserve Bank of India.
While referring to a Supreme Court’s recent case in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court said, “It was held that the grounds of arrest have to be communicated in writing even in the case of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”). This case pertains to the arrest of the petitioner therein under the provisions of the UAPA and the Supreme Court, while holding that the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA are para materia with the provisions of Sections 43A & 43B of the UAPA, had held that the written grounds of arrest should be communicated to the arrestee. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the written grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner on the day of his arrest.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being sans merits.
Cause Title: Jaswant Singh v. Union of India and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:074717-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Randeep S. Rai, Anand Chhibber, Vikram Chaudhari with Advocates Shikhar Sarin, Rubina Virmani, Shreya B. Sarin and Hargun Sandhu.
Respondents: Add. Solicitor General Satyapal Jain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang.