14 Hrs Of Interrogation Not Heroic: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs ED To Sensitise Officers To Follow Some Reasonable Time Limit For Investigation
|The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the ED to take remedial measures and sensitise its officers to adhere to reasonable time limits for investigations, after terming the 14-hour interrogation of Surender Panwar as “not heroic” on the part of the ED.
The Court noted that Surender Panwar (petitioner), who was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Sonipat constituency, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with alleged illegal mining activities and money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) simply based on the premise that he was the Director of Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (DSPL), which was later pointed that he ceased to be the director of in 2013.
A Single Bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu observed, “He was constantly interrogated…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(s) in such like cases.”
Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang represented the respondents.
The ED alleged that during investigations, several entities, including DSPL, were identified as part of a larger syndicate accused of illegal mining. Incriminating documents, digital devices, valuables and other items were seized during searches conducted by the ED, leading to the petitioner’s arrest. The ED submitted that the petitioner and his family held 32% shares in DSPL.
The petitioner argued that there was no direct evidence of him dealing with proceeds of crime or being actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of DSPL from which he resigned as a director in 2013. Secondly, the petitioner claimed that he was a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly from Sonipat Constituency and the elections for the same were forthcoming, therefore the timing of the arrest was nothing, but an outcome of political vendetta.
The High Court stated that the arguments raised on behalf of the ED were not convincing and hence were rejected.
“A bare perusal of the “grounds of arrest” as well as “reasons to believe” reveals that the entire case of E.D is based on “illegal mining” by fabricating e-rawana bills. In first eight FIRs, petitioner was not an accused. In 9 th 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,” the Court remarked.
The Court stated that although, the ED tried to justify the arrest on the premise that the petitioner was a beneficiary of the syndicate running “illegal mining”, there was no material to substantiate that the petitioner was having any relationship and/or concern as Director, Promoter or share-holder of the company.
“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 remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed that “arrest order as well as grounds of arrest…issued by E.D; remand orders…passed by learned Special Judge, against the petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside being indefensible in law.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Surender Panwar v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:125421)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema; Advocates Tanu Bedi, Sanjay Suri, Arshdeep Singh Cheema and Satish Sharma
Respondent: Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang; Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain