TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, digital devices, and evidence were recovered, which reveals the generation of proceeds of crime by the Petitioner's firm. Also, unaccounted Cash of Rs. 4,50,000/- which is believed to be Proceeds of Crime, was also recovered from the residence of the Petitioner. The material in possession, and findings of the Directorate of Enforcement, information was shared under section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 with the Police. Further, under the information shared u/s 66(2) of the FMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 21 dated 19.01.2024 was registered u/ s 120-B, 420 of IPC, 1860, 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and 15 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 at P.S. Pratap Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. Violation of statutory provisions contained in the MMDR Act Haryana Rules 2012 - HELD THAT:- Once the petitioner has been made an accused by the ED itself in the FIR, it cannot be countenanced that he will be asked to appear in person in terms of Section 50 PMLA, which contemplates obligation on the person to attend as directed; to state the truth and the proceedings before the ED officer would be a judicial proceeding. The whole context of Section 50 PMLA would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as follows: A. Issue appropriate order(s) or direction(s) to ensure that none of the respondents either the State of Haryana or the Enforcement Directorate violate the spirit and sanctity of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7382/2023 emanating from and arising out of the final Judgment dated 18.11.2022 (ANNEXURE P-9) passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 150/2021 pertaining to the same alleged transactions/questions which have formed the basis of impugned proceedings launched by the police as well as the Enforcement Directorate: B. Direct and ensure that:- i. The o fficers of Respondent No. 6 Enforcement Directorate must remain within the circumscribed limits as mandated under Sub-Section (2) of Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action in the event of forming opinion on the basis of information or material in his possession that the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened and nothing beyond; ii. Prohibit and restrain Respondent No. 6 (Enforcement Directorate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the petitioner in terms of Section 50 of the Act as well as any penal or coercive action qua the petitioner in connection therewith as the very basis of the said Schedule/Predicate o ffence is non-est; illegal; unconstitutional and therefore, null and void ab initio. 2. To ascertain whether the case is worth issuing notice, I have heard Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at length, and also go through the bulky petition and briefly the counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate, and its analysis would lead to the following outcome. 3. Respondent No. 7-Enforcement Directorate has registered ECIR/GNZO/19/2023 based on the predicate offences, which reads as under: S. No. FIR Schedule O ffence 1. 0226 dt. 14.10.2022 Sections 120-B 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 2. 0116 dt. 23.03.2023 Sections 120-B, 411, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 3. 0111 dt. 01.06.2023 Sections 420, 467 47 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity), CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), State PCB (State Pollution Control Board) District Magistrate, Yamunanagar was constituted by an ex-parte order. (No notice was issued to the petitioner's firm). Vide Annexure P-6, in 2021, a Joint Committee submitted its report before the NGT, recording that the said firm neither carried out any illegal mining nor was mining carried out at the edge of River Yamuna. On 8.3.2022, the report was summarily rejected by NGT by another ex-parte order a Second Monitoring Committee was asked to carry out onsite inspections prepare a report. On 7.5.2022, the Monitoring Committee submitted its factual report alleging that the petitioner's firm violated the mining norms.[P6]. On 14.7.2022, the Director General, Mines Geology, Haryana, terminated the mining lease of the firm took possession of the mining area in question from it. The firm has since preferred an Appeal against this termination, pending before the Appropriate Authority.[P7]. On 19.7.2022, NGT took on record the report of the Monitoring Committee, issued notice asked the firm to file a reply. Vide order dated 18.11.2022 [P-9], the NGT imposed a penalty on the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ldtech-Reg. 1. NGT order in Original Application No. 150/2021 dated 18.11.2022 in respect of M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ref. 2. NGT order in Original Application No. 423/2022 dated 31.05. 2022 in respect of M/s. JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PS Buildtech. Please refer to the above . 6. During the investigation, it has been revealed that above firms and related persons have violated environmental norms (such as in-stream mining using heavy machinery during the odd hours, diversion of the flow of River Yamuna by laying of layer of sand in the lease area to extract the more quantity of sand from the lease areas etc.) their involvement in illegal and unscientific mining. It has also been revealed that these entities/persons have issued fake e-rawanas or not issued e rawanas for transportation, done mining despite clear ban by Hon'ble NGT, mined beyond permissible limits, not followed rules/regulations prescribed by the Environment (Protect) Acts related regulations. Such proceeds earned out of illegal unscientific mining has been routed through various dummy entities in ʂ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompliance, it is punishable u/s 21 thereof with a term of imprisonment and/or fine, etc. The offences are compoundable in terms of the said Act. In terms of the said Act, the Haryana Rules 2012 have been framed specific authority has been designated to take action thereunder. As per Rule 105, for first second-time violations of the said mineral shall be liable to be seized along with the impounding of all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other things used for such unauthorized operation, which may be released only upon realization of the payment of the price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral extracted and, in addition, a fine up to fifteen thousand will happen for a third-time violation, the officer concerned shall register an FIR and handover all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other things used for such unauthorized operation to the Police. Any such offense shall entail confiscation of all such tools, equipment, vehicles, or any other thing used for such unauthorized operation for a period of a minimum of thirty days or more and pecuniary penalty and punishment for the offense as provided under Section 21 of the Mine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. [66]. Disclosure of information. (1) The Director or any other authority specified by him by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to (i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to imposition of any tax, duty or cess or to dealings in foreign exchange, or prevention of illicit traffic in the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or (ii) such other officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf, any information received or obtained by such Director or any other authority, specified by him in the performance of their functions under this Act, as may, in the opinion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n beyond what has been mentioned in subclause (2) of Section 66 of the PMLA Act and nothing beyond it. 16. The petitioner s grievance is contained in Sections 2.22 and 2.23 of the petition, which reads as follows: 2.22 In a strange turn of events and in a manner contrary to the mandate of Section 66(2) PMLA or any other rules and forms of law, the Respondent No. 7 Joint Director ED sent a communication dated 15.1.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Gobind Pura, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, thereby virtually dictating the police to register a case for specific o ffences as desired by the said o fficer. 2.23 Merely as a rubber-stamp; post o ffice and mouth piece, the police proceeded to mechanically register a case without any legal opinion and sans any application of mind. The relevant contents of the FIR reads as under: Related persons/entities are involved in money laundering and are in possession of proceeds of crime or records/ property related to money laundering. 7. In view of the above, it is clear that entities namely M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company, M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, JSM f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2024 To The Superintendent of Police, Gobind Pura, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, Haryana 135003 Sir, Subject Sharing of information under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in respect of M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, M/s. JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PS Buildtech-Reg. 1. NGT order in Original Application No. 150/2021 dated 18.11.2022 in respect of M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ref. 2. NGT order in Original Application No. 423/2022 dated 31.05.2022 in respect of M/s. JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd., M/s. PS Buildtech. Please refer to the above. 2. It is submitted that the Hon'ble NGT in its order dated 18.11.2022 has found three mining entities of Yamuna Nagar, namely M/s. Delhi Royalty Company, M/s. Mubarikpur Royalty Company and M/s. Development Strategies (India) Pvt. Ltd, guilty of violation of environmental norms and doing illegal mining and penalised as well. It is pertinent to mention that Development Strategies India Private Limited was allott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value to the mined material, apart from compensation for violation of environmental norms, we fix the same @ 10% of the lease money i.e. Rs. 2.5 crore, Rs. 4.2 crore and Rs. 12 crore in respect of Respondents No. 11 to 13 respectively. The amount may be deposited within one month with the State PCB which is to be utilized for restoration of the environment by preparing and executing an action plan, in consultation with the District Magistrate... Further, on an application filed before the Hon'ble NGT with an appeal to direct the concerned authorities to stop mining activity by the JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS Buildtech at Mandoli Gaggar West cast, Kanalsi and Jairam Jagir of Yamuna Nagar district and for quashing of the mining permits to the above respondents, the Hon'ble Tribunal has passed an interim order on 31.05.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has ordered that: 14. Even though respondent No. 7, 8 shall be bound by undertaking given by their learned counsel but we consider it appropriate to give specific direction that till further orders no mining of boulder and gravels shall be carried out on the mining sites in question by the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd, JSM foods Pvt. Ltd and PS Buildtech and persons namely Dilbag Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh (PS Buildtech), Manoj Kumar Wadhwa, Angad Singh Makkad, Gurpartap Singh Mann, Raman Ojha, Rajesh Chikara, Inderpal Singh, Naseeb Singh, Nirmal Roy, Mukesh Bansal, Ranbir Singh Rana, connivance with others were involved in rampant illegal and unscientific mining in the mines allotted to them, violating Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, damage to environment in contravention to Sections 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and provisions of Section 120-B, 420 of IPC, 1860. 7. The above information is being shared with you under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 for necessary action at your end. Encl. As above. Sd/- Navneet Agrawal, Joint Director, Gurugram Zonal O ffice, Enforcement Directorate. 19. As per the instructions handed over by the ED, the Petitioner is a Partner in M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, hereafter referred to as MRC, which is found to be involved in the commission of the offense of money laundering as defined under section 3, PMLA in connivance with othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olated the various conditions mentioned in the Mining Plan and Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012. Violations committed by MRC include violating the requirement of undertaking replenishment study, not developing a green belt, not implementing a progressive mine closure plan, not installing CCTV cameras and not having a GPS, diversion of river flow, illegal instream mining, not providing weighbridge at the entry of the mining lease area, etc. Based on the above findings, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, vide its Order dated 18.11.2022, had imposed huge penalties against M/s. Development Strategies India Private Limited (Respondent No. 11), Delhi Royalty Company (Respondent No. 12), and Mubarikpur Royalty Company (Respondent No. 13) for severe violations of environmental norms such as illegal mining, diversion of river flow, etc. Excerpts of the Order are reproduced as: - 6. We find it appropriate to accept the report as there is no meaningful objection against the same. Thus, it is clear that as far as Respondent No. 11 is concerned, apart from violating the requirement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the residence of the Petitioner. Based on the above facts, the material in possession, and findings of the Directorate of Enforcement, information was shared under section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 with the Police. Further, under the information shared u/s 66(2) of the FMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 21 dated 19.01.2024 was registered u/ s 120-B, 420 of IPC, 1860, 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and 15 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 at P.S. Pratap Nagar, Yamuna Nagar. 22. The petitioner s remaining arguments are that the present case violates statutory provisions contained in the MMDR Act Haryana Rules 2012 framed thereunder. Principally, the Appeal stands admitted in the Hon ble Supreme Court, and the issue is sub-judice as to whether the petitioner or his firm has committed any breach of the provisions. The Grounds of Appeal are comprehensive, and in the Appeal, the Hon ble Supreme Court has issued a Notice and a conditional stay regarding recovery has also been granted therein. The communication sent by the ED officer to the police to register a case under particular provisions of law would amount to dictating the course of action to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gar at Jagadhri. Neither, such communication sent by the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate to Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar is a direction nor the said Joint Director had any authority to direct for registration of FIR. Thus, the petitioner s contention that the said communication amounts to direction is misreading of the said communication, which has been reproduced in para 16. The communication is only information and it is the power of concerned investigator/SHO to register FIR if they are satisfied and found offence cognizable, as such, the present petition deserves dismissal even on this prayer and related prayers. 24. An analysis of the above arguments clearly points out that if this court disrupts the proceedings at this stage, it will amount to interfering in the investigation and presuming the malicious intent. It is not that the petitioner has been deprived of his liberty but to carry out investigation is also the statutory obligation of the investigators. If the prosecution is launched, it is always permissible to an accused to seek discharge and even to challenge the charges, if framed. However, disrupting proceedings at initial stage would vio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
