IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2167 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2022 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)

District- Patna

======================================================

Ajay Singh, S/O Late Suresh Singh, R/O Flat No. 18, AB, 18th Floor, Tower

2, The Empire, 16 A Gurusaday Road, Ballygunge, P.S- Karaya, Kolkata,

West Bengal- 700019.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The Directorate of Enforcement, through the Director, Pravartan Bhawan,

APJ Abdul Kalam Road New Delhi, 110011.

2.The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office First

Floor, Chandpura Place, Bank Road, West Gnadhi Maidan, Patna.

3.The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office First

Floor, Chandpura Place Bank Road West Gnadhi Maidan, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate

Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate

Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Advocate

Mr.Vijay Shankar Tiwari, Advocate

Ms.Abhilasha Jha, Advocate

Ms.Simran Kumari, Advocate

Rohit Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr.Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (A.S.G)

through ED, UOI Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate

Mr.Shiv Aditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate

Mr.Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 05-02-2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs: -

“(i) To issue an appropriate

writ, order or direction for declaring the

arrest of Petitioner on 28.09.2024 in

connection with ECIR/PTZO/07/2022

dated 10.01.2022 read with Addendum

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

2/73

ECIR dated 04.06.2023 and 09.11.2023

registered by Directorate of Enforcement,

Patna Zonal Office, as wholly illegal and

arbitrary in nature and in violation of

Section 19 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as "PMLA")

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may

adjudicate and hold that since the arrest

of the Petitioner by the Directorate of

Enforcement is illegal and in violation of

section 19 of PMLA, the consequential

orders of remand passed by Learned

Special Court, PMLA, Patna dated

28.09.2024 and 05.10.2024 and all other

future orders extending the remand of the

Petitioner are also illegal.

(iii) To issue a further

appropriate writ, order or direction for

the forthwith release of the Petitioner

from judicial custody.

(iv) This Hon'ble Court may

award the cost of litigation and suitable

compensation to the Petitioner for the

loss and damages caused on account of

the illegal and arbitrary actions of the

Respondent(s) Authorities.

(v) To grant any other relief or

reliefs which the Petitioner may be found

entitled to in the facts and

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

3/73

circumstances of the case.”

2. The salient facts necessary for the adjudication of

the instant writ petition are as follows:

One M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited

(hereinafter described as “M/s AMPL” for short) was granted

settlement of all sand quarries (Ghats) for extraction of sand in

the district of Aurangabad and Rohtas during the period between

1

st

January, 2015 and 31

st

of December, 2019. The said

settlement was time to time extended after it was initially

granted for five years till 30

th

of September, 2021 by four

separate grants. However, M/s AMPL surrendered its settlement

on 30

th

of April, 2021 w.e.f. 1

st

of May, 2021. Initial dispute

arose between Mines and Geological Department, Government

of Bihar and M/s AMPL over payment of royalty for the

surrendered period and also with respect of M/s AMPL

entitlement to sell sand which was stocked at K-license sites,

i.e., storage sites. The Mines and Geological Department

cancelled the K-licenses obtained by M/s AMPL in the said two

districts vide order, dated 17

th

of August, 2021 and 7

th

of July,

2021, respectively, and seized the sand stocked by M/s AMPL.

Subsequent to the cancellation of license and seizure of sand,

the officials attached to Mining Department lodged several

F.I.R.s against M/s AMPL, alleging, inter alia, that it had

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

4/73

misappropriated the sand stocked at K-license site without

issuance of e-transit challans, causing loss of revenue to the

Government. In all, 13 numbers of F.I.R. was registered against

the said company and its Directors. On the basis of Dehri Nagar

P. S. Case No. 407 of 2021, the Enforcement Directorate

(hereinafter referred to as “ED” for short) registered

ECIR/PTZO/07/2022, dated 10

th

of January, 2022 for the

scheduled offence allegedly committed by M/s AMPL and its

Directors under Sections 411 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The basis of the aforesaid case registered by ED is that the de

facto complainant of Dehri Nagar P. S. Case No. 407 of 2021

alleged that M/s AMPL has embazelled sand valued at Rs.

24,42,67,900/- stored at two different places vide two K-licences

issued to it by District Mining Office, Rohtas. However, the

properties were suspected to be proceeds of crime. It is further

alleged that only 600000 cubic ft. of sand was to be

extracted/stored in the sites in respect of which K-license were

granted, but there was 7784350 cubic ft. of sand stored in the

said sites as per the report provided by the Project Management

Unit. It was also alleged that the authorized staff / Director of

the license holder sold the sand stealthily without issuing any

pre-paid challans and thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

5/73

24,42,67,900/- to the Government. Thus, M/s AMPL allegedly

embazelled huge quantity of sum by illegal mines and the

above-mentioned sum was proceeds of crime under the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“the PMLA” for

brevity). Subsequently, vide another addendum dated 9

th

of

November, 2023, a second ECIR was registered taking into

consideration subsequent 12 F.I.R.s against M/s AMPL and

certain other persons. The Petitioner was neither named in the

F.I.R., nor connected with sand mining business. No license was

granted to the Petitioner for extraction of sand and he is no way

connected with sand business of M/s AMPL. However, in

course of investigation, the Petitioner was summoned to appear

before the ED on 27

th

of October, 2023. The Petitioner informed

the Investigating Officer of ED that at the relevant point of time

he was out of the country. The Petitioner appeared before the

ED on 25

th

of September, 2024 and furnished all required

information claimed by the Investigating Officer under

Annexure- A to the summon, dated 9

th

of September, 2024.”

3. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that on 10

th

of

November, 2023, the ED, after completion of investigation,

submitted a complaint against M/s AMPL and its Directors,

namely, Jag Narayan Singh and Satish Kumar Singh under

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

6/73

Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

4. Though the Petitioner fully cooperated with the

Investigating Officer, he was informed in the late hours of

27/28

th

of September, 2024 that the ED would arrest him in

connection with the second ECIR. On 28

th

of September, 2024,

the Respondents/ED filed an application seeking judicial

custody of the Petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge cum

Special Judge, PMLA, Patna. He was time to time remanded to

the custody of the Enforcement Directorate or in other words

judicial custody.

5. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the

ED arrested the Petitioner violating the dictum of Section 19 of

the PMLA and without collecting any document with regard to

his involvement in respect of sand business and accumulation of

proceeds of crime in association with M/s AMPL or any other

person. The ED tried to make out a case that M/s AMPL used to

run a syndicate in sand mining business in which many other

people and companies including the Petitioner and his company

are involved. They had different shares in respect of the said

illegal business. The investigation of the case against M/s

AMPL disclosed that the Petitioner allegedly had 10 per cent

shares in the illegal business of sand mining and transaction was

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

7/73

made in favour of the Petitioner according to his share. It is the

specific case of the Petitioner that there is no business

relationship between the Petitioner and M/s AMPL. However,

the Petitioner maintains personal relationship with Jag Narayan

Singh, one of the Directors of M/s AMPL. There was certain

monetary transaction absolutely of personal level through bank

between Jag Narayan Singh and the Petitioner and the said

amount has already been squared up through bank. Therefore,

the amount of transaction through banking institution cannot be

said to be proceeds of crime. The said amount was obviously

shown in the Income Tax return of the Petitioner and the ECIR

lodged against the Petitioner was illegal, inoperative and not

binding upon him. Thus, arrest of the Petitioner on the basis of

the said ECIR has claimed to be illegal and in violation of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Hence, the instant writ.

7. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Sr. Advocate

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that

the Petitioner is not implicated as an accused in Dehri Nagar

P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 which was registered by police

attached to Dehri Nagar Police Station under Sections 411 and

402 of the IPC. In ECIR No. PTZO/07/2022, dated 10

th

of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

8/73

January, 2022 and Addendum ECIR, dated 4

th

June, 2023, the

contents of the FIR of the aforesaid case has been briefly

narrated as hereunder:-

(i) Examination of the FIR no,

407/2021 dated 03.08.2021 revealed that

Authorized Staff/Director of the license

holder M/s Aditya Multicom Private

Limited for the license no. K-

ROHTAS/07/2021 having address Mauza -

Makrain, Mauza no.-00, Block-Dehri

Thana Dalmia Nagar, District-Rohtas,

Khata No-112, Khesra No-408 and license

no. K-ROHTAS/14/2021 having address-

Mauza - Makrain, Mauza no-00, Block-

Dehri, Thana Dalmia Nagar, District-

Rohtas, Khata No.-112, Khesra No.-408

has, been charged with section 411 and

420 of Indian Penal Code for Dishonestly

receiving stolen property and Criminal

Conspiracy respectively have been

invoked which are scheduled under Part

A, Paragraph 1 of Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002.

(ii) In the above mentioned FIR,

it is alleged that during the inspection of

both the above license holding places,

only 6,00,000 cubic feet of sand was

found. Whereas, there is 77,84,350 cubic

feet of sand stored at both the above

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

9/73

mentioned license holding places as per

the report provided by P.M.U. (Project

Management Unit). It is also alleged in

the said FIR that Authorized

Staff/Director of the license holder sold

the sand stealthily without issuing prepaid

E-Challans, thus causing loss to the tune

of Rs. 24,42,67,900/- to the Bihar

Government Exchequer.

(iii) Therefore, it appears from

the above that the 71,84,350 cubic feet of

sand amounting to Rs. 24,42,67,900/-

have been embezzled by M/s Aditya

Multicom Private Limited by illegal

means which is accounting to 2002.)

Proceeds of Crime and come under the

ambit of PMLA, 2002.”

8. From the FIR, it is ascertained that the Petitioner is

not a party to the sand license. He does not deal with the sand

business.

9. A pertinent question has been raised by Mr.

Rajendra Narayan that the said case, being Dehri Nagar P.S.

Case No. 407 of 2021 was quashed by this Court vide order

dated 7

th

of April, 2022. On quashment of the original FIR under

Sections 411 and 420 of the IPC, there is no scheduled offence

and in the absence of the scheduled offence, the Petitioner

cannot be arrested in a case under PMLA Act.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

10/73

10. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that

the case of the respondents specially against M/s AMPL is that

the said company and its Directors have caused loss of revenue

amounting to Rs. 2109176276/- to the State Government by way

of illegal mining of sand and selling the same without issuance

of transit challans. During investigation, the ED seized certain

documents claiming to be income tax return from the house of

Radha Charan Sah. A ledger book of income and expenditure

related to sell of sand in Aurangabad and Rohtas was also

seized. It was learnt from the said ledger book that a syndicate

was being operated by M/s AMPL and others who amongst

themselves distributed profit proportionate to their share. As for

example, M/s AMPL from April, 2020 to August, 2020, sold

sand worth Rs. 90,92,71,400/- from sand ghats of Aurangabad

and Rohtas and out of the said amount, sand worth Rs.

38,71,46,070/- was sold without issuance of E-transit Challans.

11. It is alleged that the syndicate members were

engaged in sand mining and they participated in the auction

process through dummy entities. After one dummy entity wins

the bid, initial royalty payment is made pulling money from

different persons. Actual mining is controlled by the syndicate

and profits generated from illegal mining of sand are divided

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

11/73

amongst the syndicate members. The said profit from illegal

mining is claimed to be the proceeds of crime. One Mithlesh

Kumar being a syndicate member in his statement stated that the

Petitioner/ Ajay Singh is part of the syndicate having 10 per cent

share. On perusal of the bank accounts statement of S.G. Project

Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as SGPL), a Private Limited

Company of the Petitioner, huge financial transaction was found

between the said company and M/s AMPL. The said money

amounting to Rs. 1 Crore 34 Lakhs, approximately are

transactions in non-interests bearing loans to M/s AMPL. It is

also alleged by the ED that huge amount of money was

transferred from bank account of Vinay Vinimay Private

Limited to M/s AMPL. It is claimed by the ED that the said

amount was transferred as loans to M/s AMPL but no supporting

documents has been filed by the ED in support of his claim.

12. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has

further pointed out that there are certain monetary transactions

between M/s AMPL and M/s SGPL that reveal suspicious

circumstances in respect of financial relationship between two

companies. According the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of

the petitioner the above-mentioned financial transactions

between two companies are briefly “reason to believe” that the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

12/73

petitioner is part of syndicate operating in Bihar in sand mining

scam and thereby generating huge “proceeds of crime” through

commission of offences under Sections 411 and 420 read with

Section 120B of the IPC. It is further pointed out that the above

stated facts constitute ground of arrest of the petitioner.

13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

refers to definition of money laundering stated in Section 2(1)

(p) of the said Act. It states:-

“2(1)(p) Money-laundering has

the meaning assigned to it in section 3.”

14. Section 2(1)(u) defines “proceeds of crime” in the

following words:-

“2(1)(u) “proceeds of crime”

means any property derived or obtained,

directly or indirectly, by any person as a

result of criminal activity relating to a

scheduled offence or the value of any

such property or where such property is

taken or held outside the country, then the

property equivalent in value held within

the country or abroad;

Explanation.—For the removal

of doubts, it is hereby clarified that

"proceeds of crime" include property not

only derived or obtained from the

scheduled offence but also any property

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

13/73

which may directly or indirectly be

derived or obtained as a result of any

criminal activity relatable to the

scheduled offence.”

15. Section 3 defines offence of money laundering.

The provision runs thus:-

“3. Whosoever directly or

indirectly attempts to indulge or

knowingly assists or knowingly is a party

or is actually involved in any process or

activity connected with the proceeds of

crime including its concealment,

possession, acquisition or use and

projecting or claiming it as untainted

property shall be guilty of offence of

money-laundering.

Explanation.—For the removal

of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,—

(i) a person shall be guilty of

offence of money-laundering if such

person is found to have directly or

indirectly attempted to indulge or

knowingly assisted or knowingly is a

party or is actually involved in one or

more of the following processes or

activities connected with proceeds of

crime, namely:—

(a) concealment; or

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

14/73

(b) possession; or

(c) acquisition; or

(d) use; or

(e) projecting as untainted

property; or

(f) claiming as untainted

property, in any manner whatsoever;

(ii) the process or activity

connected with proceeds of crime is a

continuing activity 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.”

16. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the

petitioner next refers to the provision contained in Section 19 of

the said Act which speaks of power to arrest. Section 19 states

as follows:-

“Section 19:- Power to arrest.

1) If the Director, Deputy

Director, Assistant Director or any other

officer authorised in this behalf by the

Central Government by general or

special order, has on the basis of material

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

15/73

in his possession, reason to believe (the

reason for such belief to be recorded in

writing) that any person has been guilty

of an offence punishable under this Act,

he may arrest such person and shall, as

soon as may be, inform him of the

grounds for such arrest.

(2) The Director, Deputy

Director, Assistant Director or any other

officer shall, immediately after arrest of

such person under sub-section (1),

forward a copy of the order along with

the material in his possession, referred to

in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating

Authority in a sealed envelope, in the

manner, as may be prescribed and such

Adjudicating Authority shall keep such

order and material for such period, as

may be prescribed.

(3) Every person arrested under

sub-section (1) shall, within twenty four

hours, be taken to a [Special Court or]

Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan

Magistrate, as the case may be, having

jurisdiction:

Provided that the period of

twenty-four hours shall exclude the time

necessary for the journey from the place

of arrest to the [Special Court or]

Magistrate's Court.”

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

16/73

17. Referring to the above provisions, it is submitted

by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the ED

failed to prove any nexus between the petitioner and M/s AMPL

in respect of the allegation of illegal sand mining, theft of miner

and mineral, receiving sand as stolen property or commission of

cheating in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with M/s AMPL.

There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner or his

company took part in the auction process of sand ghats in

Aurangabad and Rohtas. Monetary transaction between M/s

AMPL and Ajay Singh does not prove that the said transaction

was made for purchasing sand in clandestine manner. On the

other hand, it is reveled that some amount of money was paid to

M/s AMPL through bank and similar amount of money was paid

to the petitioner also through bank. In support of his contention,

he refers to page 140 to 147 of the writ petition.

18. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the

petitioner next submits that the petitioner has been implicated in

the case instituted by the ED by subsequent ECIR which is

termed as addendum ECIR on the basis of so called entries in

the ledger book of one Mithlesh Kumar. The said entries in the

ledger book contained in some loose sheets cannot be used as a

material evidence against the petitioner to hold that there was

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

17/73

reason to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence

punishable under the said Act.

19. In support of his contention, learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner has referred to Paragraph No. 15 of

Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. C. Shukla & Ors.,

reported in 1998 3 SCC 410. It is held by the three Judge’s

Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 15 of the

said judgment as hereunder:-

“15. After having held that the

documents were neither books of account

nor kept in the regular course of business

the High Court observed that even if they

were admissible under Section 34, they

were not, in view of the plain language of

the section, sufficient enough to fasten the

liability on the head of a person, against

whom they were sought to be used. As,

according to the High Court, the

prosecution conceded that besides the

alleged entries in the diaries and the

loose sheets there was no other evidence

it observed that the entries would not

further the case of the prosecution. As

regards the admissibility of the documents

under Section 10 the High Court held that

the materials collected during

investigation did not raise a reasonable

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

18/73

ground to believe that a conspiracy

existed, far less, that the respondents

were parties thereto and, therefore, these

documents would not be admissible under

Section 10 also. The High Court next took

up the question as to whether those

documents could be admitted under

Section 17 and observed that the

admissions, if any, therein could be used

against the Jains only and not against

Shri Advani and Shri Shukla. The High

Court, however, observed that the

production and proof of the documents by

themselves would not furnish evidence of

the truth of their contents and that during

investigation CBI did not examine any

witness or collect materials to prove the

same. With the above findings and

observations, the High Court arrived at

the following conclusion:

“In the present case there is no

evidence against the petitioners except

the diaries, notebooks and the loose sheet

with regard to the alleged payments (vide

MRs 68/91, 72/91 and 73/91). The said

evidence is of such a nature which cannot

be converted into a legal evidence against

the petitioners, in view of my above

discussion.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

19/73

There is no evidence in the

instant case with regard to the monies

which are alleged to have been, received

by the Jains for the purpose of

disbursement. There is no evidence with

regard to the disbursement of the amount.

Then there is no evidence with regard to

the fact to prove prima facie that the

petitioners i.e. Shri L.K. Advani and Shri

V.C. Shukla accepted the alleged amounts

as a motive or reward for showing favour

or disfavour to any person and that the

said favours and disfavours were shown

in the discharge of their duties as public

servants as contemplated by Section 7 of

the Act (Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988). Thus the Court will have to

presume all the above facts in the absence

of any evidence in connection therewith

to frame charges against the petitioners.”

20. Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that in the aforementioned report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that entries in some loose sheets or some books of accounts

are not admissible in evidence under Section 10 of the Evidence

Act.

21. Section 10 of the Evidence Act reads as under:-

“10. Things said or done by

conspirator in reference to common

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

20/73

design.

Where there is reasonable

ground to believe that two or more

persons have conspired together to

commit an offence or an actionable

wrong, anything said, done or written by

any one of such persons in reference to

their common intention, after the time

when such intention was first entertained

by any one of them, is a relevant fact as

against each of the persons believed to be

so conspiring, as well for the purpose of

proving the existence of the conspiracy as

for the purpose of showing that any such

person was a party to it.”

22. In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay,

reported in AIR 1957 SC 747, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that it is recognized on well established authority that

principle underlying the reception of evidence of the statements,

acts and writings of one co-conspirator as against the other is on

the theory of agency. Ordinarily, a person cannot be made

responsible for the acts of others unless they have been

instigated by him or done with his knowledge or consent.

23. This Section provides an exception to the rule, by

laying down an overt act committed by one of the conspirators

being sufficient to make it the act of all. But then, the opening

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

21/73

words of Section made it abundantly clear that such concept of

agency can be availed, only after the Court is satisfied that there

is reasonable ground to believe that they have conspired to

commit an offence or an actionable wrong. In other words, only

when such reasonable ground exits, anything said, done or

written by any one of them in reference to their common

intention thereafter is relevant against the others, not only for

the purpose of existence of the conspiracy but also for proving

that the other person was a party to it.

24. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner that if the case of the prosecution is believed in its

face value, there was conspiracy between M/s AMPL and M/s.

SGPL. The Investigating Officer failed to collect any document

either from M/s AMPL or M/s SGPL or its Directors in order to

prove monetary transaction as a result of conspiracy to run sand

mining illegally in the districts of Aurangabad and Rohtas. The

ED relied upon a so called ledger maintained by one Mithlesh

Kumar with whom the petitioner had no business relationship.

There is also no evidence that the petitioner and the said

Mithlesh Kumar hatched conspiracy to deal with the proceeds of

crime. Therefore, the statement of Mithlesh Kumar is not at all

admissible against the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

22/73

25. On the same point, the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner refers to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Common Cause / Manohar Lal Sharma &

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2017) 11 SCC 731.

Discussions contained in paragraph no. 276 to 278 are relevant

for our purpose and are quoted below:-

“276. Placing implicit reliance

on the decision of this Court in CBI v.

V.C. Shukla [CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3

SCC 410 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 761] , it was

submitted that it is open to any

unscrupulous person to make any entry

any time against anybody's name

unilaterally on any sheet of paper or

computer excel sheet. There being no

further corroborative material with

respect to the payment, no case is made

out so as to direct an investigation, and

that too against large number of persons

named in the documents. Such entries

have been held to be prima facie not even

admissible in V.C. Shukla case [CBI v.

V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 : 1998

SCC (Cri) 761] . He urged that in case

investigation is ordered on the basis of

such documents, it would be very

dangerous and no constitutional

functionary/officer can function

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

23/73

independently, as per the constitutional

imperatives. No case is made out on the

basis of material which is not cognizable

in law, to direct investigation.

277. Before dilating upon the

issue canvassed in the application we

make it clear that we have not examined

the main writ petitions vis-à-vis challenge

to the appointments of Respondents 2 and

3. We are examining only the merit of IA

No. 3 supported by IA No. 4, as to

whether a case is made out on the basis

of materials which are placed on record,

to constitute SIT and direct investigation

against the various functionaries/officers

which are projected in Annexures A-8, A-

9 and A-10 and other entries on loose

sheets and further monitor the same.

278. With respect to the kind of

materials which have been placed on

record, this Court in V.C. Shukla case

[CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 :

1998 SCC (Cri) 761] has dealt with the

matter though at the stage of discharge

when investigation had been completed

but same is relevant for the purpose of

decision of this case also. This Court has

considered the entries in Jain Hawala

diaries, notebooks and file containing

loose sheets of papers not in the form of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

24/73

“books of accounts” and has held that

such entries in loose papers/sheets are

irrelevant and not admissible under

Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that

only where the entries are made in the

books of accounts regularly kept,

depending on the nature of occupation,

that those are admissible.”

26. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner that implication of the accused in the offence

under Section 3 of the PMLA is in gross violation of Article 21

of the Constitution of India. Since, the ECIR was equivalent to

FIR, the ECIR contains the grounds of arrest, details of offence

etc. and without the knowledge of ingredients of such a

document, the ability of the accused to defend himself at the

stage of bail could not be fully realized. It was urged that the

same may also hamper the ability of the trial at latter stage. It is

for this reason there were adequate safeguards under Sections

19 of the PMLA which made the provision constituting

complaint.

27. Section 19(1) empowers the Director, Deputy

Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorized in

this behalf by the Central Government to arrest a person on the

basis of material in his possession when he has “reason to

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

25/73

believe” (the reason of such believe to be recording in writing)

that any person is guilty of an offence punishable this Act.

28. The term “reason to believe” is of great

implication and Arresting Officer is under obligation to establish

at the initial stage of arrest of a person that he is having

sufficient material which has “reason to believe” that the person

is guilty under the Act.

29. In Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

(Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024) decided on 12

th

of July,

2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with

various nuances of Section 19 of the PMLA. In paragraph no. 9

of the Arvind Kejriwal (supra), it is observed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court:-

“9. A bare reading of the

section reflects, that while the legislature

has given power to the Director, Deputy

Director, Assistant Director, or an

authorised officer to arrest a person, it is

fenced with preconditions and

requirements, which must be satisfied

prior to the arrest of a person. The

conditions are –

=> The officer must have

material in his possession.

=> On the basis of such

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

26/73

material, the authorised officer should

form and record in writing, “reasons to

believe” that the person to be arrested, is

guilty of an offence punishable under the

PML Act.

=> The person arrested, as

soon as may be, must be informed of the

grounds of arrest.

These preconditions act as

stringent safeguards to protect life and

liberty of individuals.”

30. On the same issue, the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 38 of Pankaj Bansal v.

Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court, has observed, while interpreting

Section 19 of the said Act with reference to Article 22 (1) of the

Constitution of India, “In this regard, we may note that Article

22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who

is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed,

as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the

fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of

conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily

be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be

noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under

Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

27/73

unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied,

such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin

conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the Court

must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public

Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are

reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not

guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to

commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it

would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the

grounds on which the authorised officer arrested him/her under

Section 19 and the basis for the Officer's “reason to believe” that

he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It

is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that

he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the

Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not

guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore,

communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article

22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to

serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.

31. It is learnt from the submission made by the

learned Additional Solicitor General that the petitioner withheld

relevant information which was exclusively within his

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

28/73

knowledge and contended that he had family relationship with

Jag Narayan Singh, one of the Directors of M/s AMPL since his

father’s time and the money which was transited between the

petitioner and M/s AMPL are friendly borrowings.

32. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate on

behalf of the petitioner that if this Court proceeds by the

narration of facts, it would obviously be found that except

exchange of money by way of bank transaction by the petitioner

in favour of M/s AMPL, no other document could be seized by

the Investigating Officer. Monetary transaction between two

companies does not lead to the reason to believe that the

petitioner is guilty under the PMLA. Moreover, the statement of

a co-accused implicating the petitioner or self-inculpatory

statement of the petitioner can also not be used as material fact

under the provisions of PMLA. It is gross violation of the

constitutional mandate as well as the law of evidence to use

one’s confessional statement.

33. In this case, the statement of Mithlesh Kumar, has

been taken for implicating another person, i.e., the petitioner.

Similarly, no document has been filed by the ED to show that

the petitioner has admitted his involvement in sand mining

scam.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

29/73

34. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior

Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s arrest is

illegal, violative of fundamental right and is liable to be

quashed.

35. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. reported in

(2024) 7 SCC 576, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner

that the failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the

question put to him by ED would not be sufficient in itself for

the Investigating Officer to hold that he was liable to be arrested

under Section 19, as the said provisions specially required him

to find reason to believe that they were guilty of an offence

under the said Act. Mere non-corporation of a witness in

response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA

would not be enough to render him liable to be arrested under

Section 19.

36. It was stated by the ED that the petitioner was

evasive in providing relevant information. It was however not

clarified as to why the petitioner’s replies were categorized as

evasive and that record is not placed before this Court for

verification. Evasive reply by the petitioner as alleged by the

ED cannot be a ground for his arrest.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

30/73

37. The Assistant Director, ED, Patna Zonal Office,

has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is

submitted on behalf of the respondents that as many as 24 FIRs

have been registered in different Police Stations situated in the

districts of Aurangabad and Rohtas in the State of Bihar against

M/s AMPL, alleging illegal mining, transportation, storage and

sale of huge quantity of sand causing revenue loss of Rs.

210,91,76,276/-. On the basis of the said complaints, police

registered specific cases under penal provisions of Bihar

Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,

Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 and scheduled offences

under Sections 411, 420, 120B, 384 and 467 of the IPC against

the above-named company and its Directors. ED took up the

investigation lodging ECIR under Paragraph No. 1 in part A of

the Schedule to the PMLA. Again, on the basis of Dehri Nagar

P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021, dated 3

rd

of August, 2021 registered

against M/s AMPL for the offences under Sections 34, 120B,

379, 384, 406, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC read with

Rule 21 Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957 (2015), Rule 40 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession

Rules, 1972, Rules 11, 39 of Bihar Minerals (Concession,

Prevention of illegal mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

31/73

2019 and Section 15 of Environment Protection Act, 1986, an

investigation was initiated against M/s AMPL and its Directors

after recording ECIR, dated 10

th

of January, 2022 read with

addendum dated 4

th

June, 2023 and 9

th

of November, 2023 to the

above-mentioned ECIR. In course of investigation and physical

verification of the sites of stocking places of sand allotted to

company by way of K-licences, it was found that huge quantity

of sand stock was available at various sites though in the

website, the stock of sand was shown “nil”. The ED recovered

various documents and fixed deposits worth Rs. 6,85,77,580/-

and seizure of cash Rs. 24,60,000/- from the premises of M/s

AMPL, its Directors and other stockholders. During

investigation, it was learnt that Income Tax Department, Patan,

carried out searches in the month of February, 2023 at the

premises of one Ashok Kumar, Director of one M/s Broadson

Commodities Private Limited, Sudama Kumar (an Associate of

Ashok Kumar) and Radha Charan Sah (one of the syndicate

members of the illegal sand mining). The documents seized by

the I.T. Department were procured under Section 54 of the

PMLA.

38. It is further contended on behalf of the

respondents that the documents seized from the premises of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

32/73

Radha Charan Sah and Ashok Kumar include details of ledger

of income and expenditure related to sale of sand from various

Ghats of Aurangabad and Rohtas, Bihar and details of profit

sharing percentage among the syndicate members. The entries

recorded in the said documents were further corroborated with

the transactions undertaken through bank account of M/s AMPL

and others.

39. It was learnt from the ledger that sand worth Rs.

38,71,46,070/- was illegally sold during the period April, 2020

to August, 2020 without generation of challan causing revenue

loss to the Government exchequer.

40. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents

that the information was shared under Section 66(2) of the

PMLA with the Mining Department, Bihar with a copy to DGP,

Bihar Police. On the basis of the said information, the Mining

Department filed the complaint before the State Police and

accordingly FIR No. 6137017240047 was registered by the

police in Dehri Nagar Police Station on 8

th

of February, 2024 as

well as Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 5125024240115 on 13

th

of

February, 2024 against M/s AMPL for commission of offences

under Sections 420 and 379 of the IPC. The said FIRs were

however quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

33/73

order dated 7

th

of October, 2024. The investigation of the above-

mentioned cases revealed that illegal sale of sand by the various

companies was mainly controlled by syndicate, of which the

petitioner is a member who by investing funds in the company

either through banking or non-banking channels became

syndicate members and the profit generated from illegal sale of

sand is nothing but proceeds of crime which were distributed

among syndicate members. As there was monetary transaction

between the petitioner and M/s AMPL, his statement was

recorded under Section 50 (3) of the PMLA on 25

th

of

September, 2024 to 27

th

of September, 2024. Further statement

of the petitioner under Section 50 (3) of the PMLA was

recorded when he was in custody of the ED from 6

th

of October,

2024 to 11

th

of October, 2024. The ledger book recovered from

Radha Charan Sah was confronted with the petitioner but he

failed to give any specific explanation in respect of the

transaction between M/s AMPL and him. The ledger book

contained the name of the petitioner along with the others as

syndicate members and also the percentage of profit sharing

against their names. The petitioner was arrested on 28

th

of

September, 2024 by the ED after complying substantive and

procedural requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA. Further

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

34/73

investigation revealed that the petitioner is directly involved in

sharing the proceeds of crime. He is one of the syndicate

members dealing with illegal sand mining business as he

invested proportionality in the said business. The bank accounts

statement of M/s SGPL and Vinay Vinimay Private Limited, two

companies owned by Ajay Singh reveals that he invested Rs.

10.63 Crore during the year 2014-2016, i.e., equivalent to 10 per

cent of the biding amount, confirming his 10 per cent share in

the syndicate. Proceeds of crime generated from illegal sand

mining were distributed to him through syndicate by M/s

AMPL. Bank account analysis of M/s SGPL revealed huge cash

deposits totaling Rs. 29.3 Crore in its account during the year

2016-2021.

41. The Learned Additional Solicitor General

practically relied on the above-mentioned averments made on

behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit to provide an

overview of the incident. It is submitted by him that syndicate of

sand scam has been operating.

42. Entire process of tender of sand ghats is under the

control of the syndicate. M/s AMPL, Radha Charan Sah, Ashok

Kumar, the present petitioner and others are members of the said

syndicate and illegal trade of sand was operated by syndicate

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

35/73

members and they used to receive proceeds of crime according

to their share. M/s AMPL and Broadson Commodities Private

Limited are the two major companies involved in illegal trade of

sand. The ED filed complaint against M/s AMPL and its

Directors after 24 numbers of FIRs were lodged alleging

commission of scheduled offence by them. During investigation

of the cases, ED found complicity of the present petitioner and

others allegedly on the basis of ledger book seized from the

possession of one Radha Charan Sah and documents seized by

the Income Tax Department during raid and therefore the

accused were arrested.

43. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that

incriminating materials against the accused were found from the

statement of one Mithlesh Kumar and the documents mentioned

above. The petitioner was interrogated for three consecutive

days but he failed to clear away the circumstances collected

against him and, therefore, he was arrested.

44. It is submitted by learned ASG that the statement

of the present petitioner before the ED is prima facie admissible

on the ground that such statement was made by him before his

arrest. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that during

2015-2021, a sum of Rs. 21 Crore was deposited in cash in the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

36/73

account of the petitioner. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 38 Lakh

deposited in cash, in the ledger book maintained by Radha

Charan Sah and monetary transaction between M/s AMPL and

the petitioner as per petitioner’s share in sand business is

recorded. The documents seized by the Income Tax Department

also shows involvement of the petitioner in sand scam. These

are the “reason to believe” which the Arresting Officer had that

the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable under the

PMLA.

45. It is admitted by the learned ASG that Section 19

is a procedural safeguard against the power of arrest by the

authorised officers of ED and the procedural safeguards are:-

(i) The Arresting Officer has on the basis of material

in his possession, “reason to believe” that any person has been

guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA;

(ii) The grounds of arrest shall be handed over to the

petitioner simultaneously with his arrest:

(iii) no person can be arrested in absence of material

in his possession against the accused.

46. According to the learned ASG, the petitioner was

arrested following procedural safeguards. The Arresting Officer

on the basis of the materials collected during investigation as

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

37/73

narrated above had “reason to believe” that the petitioner is

guilty of offence. The said fact has been stated in the grounds of

arrest which was supplied to the petitioner and during

investigation, the ED collected incriminating material against

the petitioner. There was not only monetary transaction between

the M/s AMPL and the petitioner through bank but during the

period 2014-2016, Rs. 29 Crores were transacted between the

parties.

47. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that

monetary transaction between two companies is not uncommon

in the business, but when there is monetary transaction between

two companies some norms are required to be followed. As for

example, there should be a board meeting where decision for

monetary transaction would be taken by the Board of Directors.

On the basis of such resolution, the bank institutions shall be

asked by the company to disburse the amount in the credit of the

trasferee company and there would be similar resolution at the

time of transfer of the money in the account of transferee

company. No such requirement was followed either by M/s

AMPL or by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner’s complicity is

proved.

48. The learned ASG refers to page 92 of the writ

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

38/73

petition, consisting the statement regarding “reason to believe”.

Paragraph Nos. 9 to 14 and 19 to 20 of the said document states

as follows:

“9. Further investigation in this

case revealed that Shri Ajay Singh,

Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd is also a

part of this syndicate with 10% of total

share in the profit generated from the

illegal sand mining and sale of sand by

M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited.

Further document seized by income tax

department also corraborates

involvement of syndicate members,

amount paid to them against the dding

amount and share received from the

illegal sale of sand. Further, the analysis

of bank accounts of Mis SG Projects Pvt

Ltd reflects huge transactions with Mis

Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd.

10. During the course of

statement u's 50 of the PMLA, 2002 of Sh.

Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Director of

Broadson Commodities Pvt Ltd (the

company is one of the members with

60.9% share of syndicate), revealed that

there is a Syndicate behind the illegal

sand mining and sale of sand and named

Sh Ajay Singh, Director of SG Projects

Pvt Ltd as one of the members of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

39/73

syndicate with 10% share in the illegal

profits.

11. Further, analysis of the

documents procured from Income Tax

Department, Patna u/s 54 of PMLA, 2002

revealed that on 28.07.2020, Rs

39,00,000/- were transferred from PNB

Dehri account of Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd

to SG Projects Pvt Ltd. Similarly, on

19.03.2020, Rs 1 Cr were transferred

from M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd to SG

Projects Pvt Ltd against cash deposit of

Rs 1 Cr which clearly establishes

involvement of SG Projects Pvt Ltd in the

illegal sand mining business of M/s

Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd.

12. Further, analysis of the

bank accounts of M/s Aditya Multicom

Pvt Ltd and SG projects Pvt Ltd reveals

huge transactions however Sh. Ajay Singh

could not satisfactorily explain the reason

for such huge transactions. He stated that

all these transactions were family loans

given to M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd

without any interest, however he accepted

that he did not have any supporting

documents regarding the same. However,

analysis of the ledger of M/s Aditya

Multicom Pvt Ltd revealed that

transactions with M/s SG Projects Pvt ltd

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

40/73

were against sale of sand. Hence, it is

evident that Ajay Singh. Director of SG

Projects Pvt Ltd is giving contradictory

replies and trying to hide the truth to

mislead the investigation.

13. Further, analysis of bank

accounts of Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd (an

associated entity of Ajay Singh) reveals

that Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd has

transferred huge funds to M/s Aditya

Multicom Pvt Ltd. Further, it can be seen

from the analysis of the bank Accounts

that in all instances money was

transferred from SG Projects Pvt Ltd to

Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd and the same

amount was subsequently transferred to

Mis Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd on the same

day however, when asked about the wa

Ajay Singh could not satisfactorily

explain nature and purpose of the

transactions and gave misleading

answers. He stated that Vinay Vinimay

Pvt Ltd has given loans to M/s Aditya

Multicom Pvt Ltd, however he accepted

that he did not have any supporting

documents regarding the same. Further,

analysis of the ledger of M/s Aditya

Multicom Pvt Ltd revealed that

transactions with Vinay Vinimay Pvt Ltd

were against sale of sand. Hence, it is

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

41/73

evident that Ajay Singh. Director of SG

Projects Pvt Ltd is giving contradictory

replies and trying to hide the truth to

mislead the investigation.

14. Further on perusal of

ledger of SG Projects Pvt Ltd it is seen

that cash deposit of Rs 49,58,000/- was

made into the account of SGPL on

17.06.2015 and on the same day Rs 3 Cr

was transferred to M/s Aditya Multicom

Pvt Ltd from SGPL.

19. Thus, in view of the above, I

have reasons to believe that SG Projects

Pvt Ltd through its director Shri Ajay

Singh is involved in illegal sand mining

business and also a part of the syndicate

which is involved in illegal mining and its

sale, thereby generating huge proceeds of

crime through commission of offences u/s

120B, 411, 420 of IPC, 1860 which are

scheduled offences under the PMLA,

2002. Further the said proceeds of crime

are subsequently being layered and

laundered through various

entities/individuals. Thus, Ajay Singh is

found to be involved in the activities

related with the scheduled offence hence

is guilty of the offence of the money

laundering.

20. Shri Jag Ajay Singh has

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

42/73

been non cooperative during the

investigation by resorting to withholding

of relevant information which are in his

exclusive knowledge and has shifted onus

on others. He has thereby made attempts

to misguide and frustrate the

investigation proceedings under the

Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002.”

49. On the question as to whether statement of a co-

accused can be used against another to implicate him in a case

under the PMLA, the learned ASG refers to Section 50 of the

PMLA. Section 50 runs thus:-

“50. Powers of authorities

regarding summons, production of

documents and to give evidence, etc. -

(1) The Director shall, for the

purposes of section 12, have the same

powers as are vested in a civil Court

under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect

of the following matters, namely:

(a) discovery and inspection;

(b) enforcing the attendance of

any person, including any officer of a

reporting entity, and examining him on

oath;

(c) compelling the production

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

43/73

of records;

(d) receiving evidence on

affidavits;

(e) issuing commissions for

examination of witnesses and documents;

and

(f) any other matter which may

be prescribed.

(2) The Director, Additional

Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director

or Assistant Director shall have power to

summon any person whose attendance he

considers necessary whether to give

evidence or to produce any records

during the course of any investigation or

proceeding under this Act.

(3) All the persons so

summoned shall be bound to attend in

person or through authorised agents, as

such officer may direct, and shall be

bound to state the truth upon any subject

respecting which they are examined or

make statements, and produce such

documents as may be required.

(4) Every proceeding under

sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed

to be a judicial proceeding within the

meaning of section 193 and section 228

of the Indian Penal Code .

(5) Subject to any rules made in

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

44/73

this behalf by the Central Government,

any officer referred to in sub-section (2)

may impound and retain in his custody

for such period, as he thinks fit, any

records produced before him in any

proceedings under this Act:

Provided that an Assistant

Director or a Deputy Director shall not

(a) impound any records

without recording his reasons for so

doing; or

(b) retain in his custody any

such records for a period exceeding three

months, without obtaining the previous

approval of the Joint Director.

50. In Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of

Enforcement, reported in 2024 9 S.C.R. 110, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed in Paragraph No. 13 as follows:

“13. At the outset, it may be

noted that as well settled by now, the

provisions of PMLA are not only to

investigate into the offence of money

laundering but more importantly to

prevent money laundering and to provide

for confiscation of property derived from

or involved in money laundering and the

matters connected therewith and

incidental thereto. As held by the Three-

Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra),

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

45/73

the PMLA is a self- contained Code and

the dispensations envisaged thereunder,

must prevail in terms of Section 71

thereof, which predicates that the

provisions of the Act shall have effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent

therewith contained in any other law for

the time being in force, which includes

provisions of the Cr.P.C. The Section

65 of the Act predicates that the

provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply

insofar as they are not inconsistent with

the provisions of the PMLA in respect of

arrest, search and seizure, attachment,

confiscation, investigation, prosecution

and all other proceedings under the Act.

It is pertinent to note that Section 4(2) of

the Code states that all offences under

any other law shall be investigated,

inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt

with according to the same provisions but

subject to any enactment for the time

being in force regulating the manner or

place of investigating, inquiring into,

trying or otherwise dealing with such

offences. Further, Section 5 of the Code

states that nothing contain in the Code

shall, in absence of specific provision to

the contrary, affect any special or local

law for the time being in force, or any

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

46/73

special jurisdiction or power conferred,

or any special form of procedure

prescribed, by any other law for the time

being in force. Thus, having regard to the

conjoint reading of Section 71 and

Section 65 of the PMLA as also Section

4(2) and Section 5 of the Code, there

remains no shadow of doubt that the

provisions of PMLA will have the effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent

therewith contained in any other law for

the time being in force, including the

provisions of the Cr.P.C.”

51. With regard to the conferment of power upon the

authority under Section 50 of the PMLA excluding the

procedural safeguard would be contrary to the stand of

“procedure established by law” under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme in Abhishek

Banerjeee (supra) quoted Paragraph No. 425 and 431 of Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary (supra) in order to establish once again

the validity of Section 50 of the PMLA in the touchstone of

Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The

aforesaid paragraph are quote below:-

“425. Indeed, sub-section (2) of

Section 50 enables the Director,

Additional Director, Joint Director,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

47/73

Deputy Director or Assistant Director to

issue summon to any person whose

attendance he considers necessary for

giving evidence or to produce any records

during the course of any investigation or

proceeding under this Act. We have

already highlighted the width of

expression “proceeding” in the earlier

part of this judgment and held that it

applies to proceeding before the

Adjudicating Authority or the Special

Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless,

sub-section (2) empowers the authorised

officials to issue summon to any person.

We fail to understand as to how Article

20(3) would come into play in respect of

process of recording statement pursuant

to such summon which is only for the

purpose of collecting information or

evidence in respect of proceeding under

this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned,

is bound to attend in person or through

authorised agent and to state truth upon

any subject concerning which he is being

examined or is expected to make

statement and produce documents as may

be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of

Section 50 of the 2002 Act…

426 to 430…..

431. In the context of the 2002

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

48/73

Act, it must be remembered that the

summon is issued by the Authority under

Section 50 in connection with the inquiry

regarding proceeds of crime which may

have been attached and pending

adjudication before the Adjudicating

Authority. In respect of such action, the

designated officials have been

empowered to summon any person for

collection of information and evidence to

be presented before the Adjudicating

Authority. It is not necessarily for

initiating a prosecution against the

noticee as such. The power entrusted to

the designated officials under this Act,

though couched as investigation in real

sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain

relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or

pursuing with an action regarding

proceeds of crime, if the situation so

warrants and for being presented before

the Adjudicating Authority. It is a

different matter that the information and

evidence so collated during the inquiry

made, may disclose commission of

offence of money-laundering and the

involvement of the person, who has been

summoned for making disclosures

pursuant to the summons issued by the

Authority. At this stage, there would be no

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

49/73

formal document indicative of likelihood

of involvement of such person as an

accused of offence of money laundering.

If the statement made by him reveals the

offence of money -laundering or the

existence of proceeds of crime, that

becomes actionable under the Act itself.

To put it differently, at the stage of

recording of statement for the purpose of

inquiring into the relevant facts in

connection with the property being

proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an

investigation for prosecution as such; and

in any case, there would be no formal

accusation against the noticee. Such

summons can be issued even to witnesses

in the inquiry so conducted by the

authorised officials. However, after

further inquiry on the basis of other

material and evidence, the involvement of

such person (noticee) is revealed, the

authorised officials can certainly proceed

against him for his acts of commission or

omission. In such a situation, at the stage

of issue of summons, the person cannot

claim protection under Article 20(3) of

the Constitution. However, if his/her

statement is recorded after a formal

arrest by the ED official, the

consequences of Article 20 (3) or Section

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

50/73

25 of the Evidence Act may come into

play to urge that the same being in the

nature of confession, shall not be proved

against him. Further, it would not

preclude the prosecution from proceeding

against such a person including for

consequences under Section 63 of the

2002 Act on the basis of other tangible

material to indicate the falsity of his

claim. That would be a matter of rule of

evidence.”

52. Finally in Paragraph No. 19 of the aforesaid

judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“19. The above ratio laid down

in Vijay Madanlal clinches the

contentions raised by the learned

counsels for the appellants with regard to

the provisions of Section 50 being

violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21 of

the Constitution, and we need not further

elaborate the same, nor do we need to

deal with the decisions of this Court on

the said issue which have already been

dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice it to

say that Section 50 enables the authorized

Authority to issue summon to any person

whose attendance he considers necessary

for giving evidence or to produce any

records during the course of the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

51/73

proceedings under the Act, and that the

persons so summoned is bound to attend

in person or through authorized agent,

and to state truth upon the subject

concerning which he is being examined

or is expected to make statement and

produce documents as may be required by

virtue of sub- section (3) of Section 50. At

the stage of issue of summons, the person

cannot claim protection under Article

20(3) of the Constitution, the same being

not “testimonial compulsion”. At the

stage of recording of statement of a

person for the purpose of inquiring into

the relevant facts in connection with the

property being proceeds of crime, is not

an investigation for prosecution as such.

The summons can be issued even to

witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by

the authorized officers. The consequences

of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or

Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come

into play only if the involvement of such

person (noticee) is revealed and his or

her statements is recorded after a formal

arrest by the ED official. In our opinion,

the learned counsels for the appellants

have sought to reagitate the issues which

have already been settled in Vijay

Madanlal.”

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

52/73

53. Referring to another decision in Anoop Bartaria

& etc. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., reported in 2023

SCC OnLine SC 477. It is submitted by the learned ASG that

the power of the High Court to quash the complaint filed by the

statutory agency under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are different though, the

Constitutional Court must take into consideration the sever

parameters delineated in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan

Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The instant

case does not fall under any of the above parameters. There

being enough material to show prima facie involvement of the

petitioner in the alleged offence of money laundering, as

contemplated under the PMLA, the order of the High Court

dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner was affirmed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

54. In Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate

of Enforcement, reported in AIR 2024 SC 169, is another

judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is relied upon

by the learned ASG to submit that the petitioner does not have

any scope to challenge the remand order passed by the learned

Special Judge, Patna in view of twin conditions applicable for

grant of bail contained in Section 45 (1) of the said Act.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

53/73

55. In Tarun Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court refers to Paragraph No. 412 of Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary (supra) which runs thus:-

“412. As a result, we have no

hesitation in observing that in whatever

form the relief is couched including the

nature of proceedings, be it under Section

438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter,

by invoking the jurisdiction of the

Constitutional Court, the underlying

principles and rigors of Section 45 of the

2002 must come into play and without

exception ought to be reckoned to uphold

the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a

special legislation providing for stringent

regulatory measures for combating the

menace of money-laundering.”

56. In Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement

reported in 2015 16 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that the conditions specified in Section 45 of PMLA

are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further

strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and Section 71 of

the said Act. Section 65 requires that the provisions

of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the

provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the

provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

54/73

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in

any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an

overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only

if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA

will have to be complied with even in respect of an application

for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the

provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is

proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of

crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove

that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the

appellant.

57. Thus, the learned ASG concludes that the ED

arrested the accused, while performing his mandatory duty

regarding the reasons. The said exercise has to be followed by

way of an information being served on the arrestee of the

grounds of arrest. The sufficient materials have been collected

by the Investigating Officer in support to his involvement in the

offence of sand scam operating in the State of Bihar by forming

a syndicate. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to

allow the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India filed by the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

55/73

58. Though it has not been argued in great detail about

the scope and import of the term “reason to believe”, Section 19

(1) casts a duty upon the Arresting Officer to form an opinion on

the basis of materials in his possession collected by him that

there is “reason to believe” that the person has been guilty of an

offence punishable under the Act. The word reason to believe

has not been defined in the PMLA. Section 26 of the IPC

defines “reason to believe” in the following words:-

“26 “Reason to believe”:- a

person is said to have “reason to believe”

a thing, if he has sufficient cause to

believe that thing but not otherwise.”

59. The term “reason to believe” is also used in

Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and

Section 103 of the Customs Act.

60. Section 35 (1) reads thus:-

“35. Power to arrest:-(1) If any

officer of Enforcement authorised in this

behalf by the Central Government, by

general or special order, has reason to

believe that any person in India or within

the Indian customs waters has been guilty

of an offence punishable under this Act,

he may arrest such person and shall, as

soon as may be, inform him of the

grounds for such arrest.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

56/73

(2)Every person arrested under

sub-section (1) shall, without unnecessary

delay, be taken to a Magistrate.

(3)Where any officer of

Enforcement has arrested any person

under sub-section (1), he shall, for the

purpose of releasing such person on bail

or otherwise, have the same powers and

be subject to the same provisions as the

officer-in-charge of a police station has,

and is subject to, under the, [Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).]”

59. Section 103 of the Customs Act states:-

“103. A comparative reading of

Section 19 of the PMLA and the above-

mentioned two provisions suggest that

while PMLA and FERA prescribed

Arresting Officer “reason to believe” that

the person is guilty of offence, Section 103

speaks of the Customs Officers power to

screen and scan a person with scientific

equipment when he has reason to believe

that any person referred to in sub-section

(2) of section 100 has any goods liable to

confiscation secreted inside his body.”

61. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union

of India & Ors., reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court made detailed discussion on the meaning and

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

57/73

purport of “reason to believe” relying on a Canadian Judgement

in the case of Gifford v. Kelson. The relevant paragraph in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary (supra) read:

“16(liii). ….. Secondly, there

must be material in possession with the

authority before the power of arrest can

be exercised as opposed to CrPC which

gives the power of arrest to any police

officer and the officer can arrest any

person merely on the basis of a

complaint, credible information or

reasonable suspicion against such

person. Thirdly, there should be reason to

believe that the person being arrested is

guilty of the offence punishable under the

PMLA in contrast to the provision in

CrPC, which mainly requires reasonable

apprehension/suspicion of commission of

offence. Also, such reasons to believe

must be reduced in writing.

Fifthly, as

per the constitutional mandate of Article

22(1), the person arrested is required to

be informed of the grounds of his arrest.

It is submitted that the argument of the

other side that the accused or arrested

persons are not even informed of the case

against them, is contrary to the plain

language of the Act, as the Act itself

mandates that the person arrested is to be

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

58/73

informed of the ground of his arrest…….

XX XX XX

16(lix). Reliance is then placed

on the decision of this Court in Union of

India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union

of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal,

(2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)

1] , wherein the Court examined the

power to arrest under Section 104 of the

1962 Act. Relying on the decision, it was

stated that the power to arrest is statutory

in character and cannot be interfered

with and can only be exercised on

objective considerations free from whims,

caprice or fancy of the officer. The law

takes due care to ensure individual

freedom and liberty by laying down

norms and providing safeguards so that

the authorities may not misuse such

power. It is submitted that the requirement

of “reason to believe” and “recording of

such reasons in writing” prevent

arbitrariness and makes the provision

compliant with Article 14. This is

reinforced from the fact that only 313

arrests have been made under the PMLA

in 17 years of operations of the PMLA.

16(Ix). Canadian judgment in

Gifford v. Kelson [Gifford v. Kelson,

(1943) 51 Man R 120 (Canada —

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

59/73

Manitoba)] was also relied on to state

that “reason to believe” conveys

conviction of the mind founded on

evidence regarding the existence of a fact

or the doing of an act, therefore, is of a

higher standard than mere suspicion.

Reliance has been further placed on

Premium Granites v. State of T.N.

[Premium Granites v. State of T.N.,

(1994) 2 SCC 691] to urge that the

requirement of giving reasons for exercise

of the power by itself excludes chances of

arbitrariness….”

We will reproduce what has

been held in Gifford (supra):

“A suspicion or belief may be

entertained, but suspicion and belief

cannot exist together. Suspicion is much

less than belief; belief includes or

absorbs suspicion.

XX XX XX

When, we speak of “reason to

believe” we mean a conclusion arrived at

as to the existence of a fact. Of course,

“reason to believe” does not amount to

positive knowledge

nor does it mean

absolute certainty but it does convey

conviction of the mind founded on

evidence regarding the existence of a fact

or the doing of an act. Suspicion, on the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

60/73

other hand, rings uncertainty. It lives in

imagination. It is inkling. It is mistrust. It

is chalk. ‘Reason to believe’ is not. It is

cheese.”

Gifford (supra) accurately

explains the difference between the

“reasons to believe” and “suspicion”.

“Suspicion” requires lower degree of

satisfaction, and does not amount to

belief. Belief is beyond speculation or

doubt, and the threshold of belief

“conveys conviction founded on evidence

regarding existence of a fact or doing of

an act”. Given that the power of arrest is

drastic and violates Article 21 of the

Constitution, we must give meaningful,

true and full play to the legislative

intent.”

62. Thus, it is now established that the term “reason to

believe” cannot be equated with the term reasonable complaint

or credible information or reasonable suspicion contained in

Section 41 (1) (B) of the Cr.P.C. “Reason to believe” is the

tangible evidence or material which constitutes sufficient cause

to believe existence of certain facts. This reason to believe goes

to the root of the power of arrest. The subjective opinion of

Arresting Officer is based upon fair and objective consideration

of material as available with him on the date of arrest. On the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

61/73

basis of reason to believe, the Court shall form the secondary

opinion on the validity of the exercise undertaken for

compliance of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA when the arrest is

made.

63. Coming to the instant case, it is found from Page

No. 88 of the writ petition that the petitioner was supplied with

the statements made containing reason to believe to invoke

Section 19 (1) of the PMLA. The petitioner was also supplied

with grounds of arrest.

64. The contents of the “reason to believe” are stated

briefly hereinbelow:-

(a) M/s AMPL obtained licence of sand mining and its

sale initially for 5 years starting 2015 to 2019. The said licence

was however extended upto the year 2021. Licence was granted

for extraction of sand from all Ghats in the District of

Aurangabad and Rohtas, Bihar.

(b) As many as 24 FIRs were instituted against AMPL

under Sections 34, 120B, 379, 384, 406, 411, 420, 467, 468 and

471 of the IPC read with Rule 21 of the Mines and Mineral

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (2015), Rule 40 of

Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, Rules 11, 39 of

Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

62/73

Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 and Section 15 of

Environment Protection Act, 1986 on the basis of complaints

filed by the District Mining Officers, Aurangabad and Rohtas.

It is alleged that the company and its Directors caused

huge revenue loss to the extent of Rs. 210,91,76,276 to the

Government exchequer.

(c) As the accused persons named in the above-

mentioned FIRs committed scheduled offence under the PMLA,

ED took upon the cases for investigation by recording an ECIR

No. PTZO/7/2022, dated 10

th

of January, 2022 read with

Addendum ECIRs dated 04.06.2023 and 09.11.2023. During

investigation, premises of Ashok Kumar, Director of Broadson

Commodities Private Limited; Sudama Kumar, Associate of

Ashok Kumar; and Radha Charan Sah, one of the syndicate

members of the illegal sand mining were raided and IT returns

of the said persons and the company were collected and seized.

(d) On examination of a ledger, seized from the

premises of Radha Charan Sah, in respect of income and

expenditure, Investigating Officer came to know details of profit

sharing percentage amongst the syndicate members.

(e) Upon analysis of the said documents, it was

ascertained that M/s AMPL illegally sold out sand extracted

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

63/73

from the mines without any permit amounting to Rs.

38,71,46,070/- without generation of challans causing revenue

loss of the Government.

(f) During investigation, it was also learnt that

syndicate members are operational in sand mining activity and

they participated in the biding process through dummy entities

controlled by them. After one of the dummy entities wins the

bid, initial royalty payments are made by pulling money from

different persons in the accounts of the bid winning entity.

Further the actual sand mining generated from illegal sand

mining are divided among the syndicate members.

(g) It is also learnt that the petitioner is also a part of

the syndicate with 10 per cent share in the profit generated from

the illegal sand mining and sale of sand by M/s AMPL. The

documents seized from the I.T. Department also corroborates

involvement of syndicate members, amount paid them against

the biding amount and share received from the illegal sale of

sand.

(h) One Mithlesh Kumar, Director of Broadson

Commodities Private Limited having 60.9 per cent share of

syndicate, revealed that there is a syndicate behind the illegal

sand mining and sale of sand, and named the petitioner as one of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

64/73

the members of the syndicate, having 10 per cent share in the

illegal profits. The ledger account book seized from Radha

Charan Sah and the statement of Mithlesh Kumar revealed that

the transactions with M/s SGPL were against sale of sand.

(i) It is also learnt that Vinay Vinimay Private Limited

and Associate Company of the petitioner transferred huge fund

to M/s AMPL. Further investigation revealed that M/s SGPL

transferred the money to Vinay Vinimay Private Limited and

Vinay Vinimay Private Limited transferred the same to M/s

AMPL. There were other documents seized from the house of

Ashok Kumar and Radha Charan Sah regarding financial

transactions of M/s SGPL with M/s AMPL.

65. Power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of the PMLA

is not for the purpose of investigation. Arrest can and should

wait and the power in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA can

be exercised only when the material with the designated officers

enables them to form an opinion by recording reasons in writing

that the arrestee is guilty. Section 19(1) thus, does not permit

arrest only to conduct investigation. Conditions of Section 19(1)

have to be satisfied Clauses A, C, D and E to Section 41(1)(ii)

of the Cr.P.C., apart from other considerations may be relevant.

66. On perusal of Clause 7 of the ECIR, dated 10

th

of

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

65/73

January, 2022, it is found that the said ECIR was lodged on the

basis of FIR No. 407 of 2021, dated 3

rd

of August 2021.

67. The allegation in the said FIR was against M/s

AMPL who was the licence holder in respect of sand blocks. It

is the specific case of the ED in Clause 7 (ii) of the above-

mentioned ECIR that the concerned FIR upon which Dehri

Nagar P.S. Case No. 407 of 2021 was instituted revealed that

only 600000 cubic ft. of sand was allegedly extracted, whereas

there was 7784350 cubic ft. of sand stored at the both the above-

mentioned licence holding places as per the report provided by

the Project Management Unit. It was alleged in the said FIR that

the authorised staff/Director of the licence holder sold the sand

stealthily without issuing pre-paid challans. Thus, causing loss

to the tune of Rs. 24,42,67,900/- to the Bihar Government

Exchequer. Clause 7(3) also speaks of embezzlement of the said

money by M/s AMPL.

68. It is not alleged in the ECIR that the petitioner is

the licence holder of any of the sand blocks. It is also not

alleged that men and agents of the petitioner or its company

were engaged for illegal extraction and storage of sand at the

storing places. Therefore, we can safely come to the conclusion

that the ED could not collect any evidence to prove that the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

66/73

petitioner was engaged in illegal mining operation in the State

of Bihar. In the Addendum ECIR also, all allegations were made

against M/s AMPL.

69. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the

case on the basis of a statement purportedly made by one

Mithlesh Kumar who alleged the involvement of the petitioner

as a member of the syndicate. Secondly, a ledger book was

recovered mentioning the accounts of syndicate members from

the possession of one Radha Charan Sah, Director of Broadson

Commodities Private Limited. Thirdly, some documents seized

by Income Tax Department showing transfer of Rs. 39 lakhs on

20

th

of July, 2020 from the bank account of M/s AMPL to the

bank account of M/s SGPL. Similarly, on 19

th

of March, 2020, a

sum of Rs. 1 Crore was transferred from M/s AMPL to M/s

SGPL against cash deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. The ED held that

those monetary transactions between M/s AMPL and M/s SGPL

establishes their involvement in illegal sand mining business.

70. The ED did not take into consideration the

statement of Jag Narayan Singh, one of the Directors of M/s

AMPL that he had a long family and business relationship with

the petitioner and entire transaction between the petitioner and

M/s AMPL was friendly transaction by way of loan. The said

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

67/73

money is not proceeds of crime and there is absolutely no iota of

evidence that the said money was used in sand mining business.

71. According to the ED in sand mining business,

syndicate was in operation in the way that after wining the bid,

money was collected as per share of those unscrupulous

businessmen employed in sand mining business and tender

money is deposited on condition that the profit of business by

way of illegal extraction would be shared amongst them. The

ED has not come up with any material showing transaction of

money between the petitioner and the M/s AMPL or any other

syndicate members simultaneously with the call of bids and

selection of the highest bidder.

72. In order to prove the involvement of the petitioner

in illegal sand mining business, at least some material was

required to be produced to the effect that the petitioner

deposited money as per his share for winning the bid. No such

evidence, unfortunately, was produced by the ED in course of its

investigation.

73. There is no explanation as to why statement of

Mithesh Kumar was accepted and the statement of Jag Narayan

Sing was not considered by the ED.

74. The learned ASG has argued with great stress

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

68/73

about the power of the ED regarding summons, production of

documents and to give evidence.

75. In this regard, it is the obligation of this Court to

mention that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the validity

of Section 50 has been challenged on the ground of being

violative of Article 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India

because it allows the various officers under PMLA to summon

any person and record his statement during the course of

investigation. Further the provision mandates that person should

disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge

in connection with the subject matter of the investigation. The

person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the

threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof

in terms of Section 63 of the PMLA. Under Section 50 of the

PMLA, the Director is vested with the same powers as are

vested in a Civil Court in the matter of ……………. (b)

enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of

a (reporting entity) and examining him on oath. The Directors

also empowered to impose fine under Section 13 of the said Act.

76. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Curt in

Paragraph No. 338 and 339 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary

(supra), reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1, has observed hereunder:-

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

69/73

“338. In the context of the 2002

Act, it must be remembered that the

summons is issued by the authority under

Section 50 in connection with the inquiry

regarding proceeds of crime which may

have been attached and pending

adjudication before the adjudicating

authority. In respect of such action, the

designated officials have been

empowered to summon any person for

collection of information and evidence to

be presented before the adjudicating

authority. It is not necessarily for

initiating a prosecution against the

noticee as such. The power entrusted to

the designated officials under this Act,

though couched as investigation in real

sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain

relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or

pursuing with an action regarding

proceeds of crime, if the situation so

warrants and for being presented before

the adjudicating authority. It is a different

matter that the information and evidence

so collated during the inquiry made, may

disclose commission of offence of money

laundering and the involvement of the

person, who has been summoned for

making disclosures pursuant to the

summons issued by the authority. At this

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

70/73

stage, there would be no formal document

indicative of likelihood of involvement of

such person as an accused of offence of

money laundering. If the statement made

by him reveals the offence of money

laundering or the existence of proceeds of

crime, that becomes actionable under the

Act itself.

339. To put it differently, at the

stage of recording of statement for the

purpose of inquiring into the relevant

facts in connection with the property

being proceeds of crime is, in that sense,

not an investigation for prosecution as

such; and in any case, there would be no

formal accusation against the noticee.

Such summons can be issued even to

witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by

the authorised officials. However, after

further inquiry on the basis of other

material and evidence, the involvement of

such person (noticee) is revealed, the

authorised officials can certainly proceed

against him for his acts of commission or

omission. In such a situation, at the stage

of issue of summons, the person cannot

claim protection under Article 20(3) of

the Constitution. However, if his/her

statement is recorded after a formal

arrest by the ED official, the

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

71/73

consequences of Article 20(3) or Section

25 of the Evidence Act may come into

play to urge that the same being in the

nature of confession, shall not be proved

against him. Further, it would not

preclude the prosecution from proceeding

against such a person including for

consequences under Section 63 of the

2002 Act on the basis of other tangible

material to indicate the falsity of his

claim. That would be a matter of rule of

evidence.”

77. There is absolutely no ambiguity with regard to

the scope of Section 50. The only question is as to whether the

statement of the petitioner involved him in an offence of money-

laundering. The petitioner admitted that he had financial

transitions with M/s AMPL. According to the case of the

prosecution, it is M/s AMPL and its Director who have proceeds

of crime. There is absolutely no evidence that the

petitioner directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly

assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any

process or activity (here sand scam) connected with

the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession,

acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted

property.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

72/73

78. The documents filed by the petitioner, Annexure

P8 series shows payment and receipt of money including an

amount of Rs. 39 Lakhs which was claimed to be projected as

tainted money by the ED. The ED has failed to establish that it

has reason to believe that petitioner is involved in concealment,

or possession, or acquisition, or use, or projecting as untainted

property or claiming as untainted property, any money obtained

by M/s AMPL through illegal sand mining business.

79. Thus, the statement containing “reason to believe”

delivered by ED to petitioner does not contain satisfactory

material to hold that the petitioner is guilty of offence under

Section 3 of the PMLA.

80. In view of the above discussions, petitioner’s

arrest, dated 20

th

of September of 2024, is illegal and in

violation of the safeguards contained in Section 19(1) of the

PMLA.

81. It is needless to say that any illegal detention is

violative of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

82. As a result, the instant writ petition is allowed.

83. The petitioner be released from the judicial

custody of the learned Special Judge, (PMLA), Patna, forthwith,

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.2167 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025

73/73

on his executing a bond with or without sureties as learned

Special Judge deems fit and proper.

84. The instant writ petition is, thus, allowed on

contest.

85. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

uttam/skm/-

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 24.01.2025.

Uploading Date 05.02.2025

Transmission Date N/A