TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled 'Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. M/s Ashiana Inn Ltd. & other registered on the basis of ECIR/JLZO/01/2016 dated 18.02.2016 under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. [3]. For the offence of money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the FIR No.12 dated 26.08.2015 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged against the petitioners for being in possession of disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income. Petitioners were granted bail in FIR No.12 dated 26.08.2015 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Punjab at Mohali. [4]. The aforesaid FIR was registered against Mandeep Singh, IAS. It was alleged that he had acquired disproportionate assets. Other accused/petitioners were also arrayed on the allegations of having connived with the principal accused i.e. Mandeep Singh. [5]. Petitioners have been summoned in pursuance of institution of complaint after taking cognizance by the trial Court. They have been summoned vide order dated 02.11.2018 to face tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the petitioner further states that the petitioner has to appear before the Court in response to the summons on 18.04.2019, on his so appearing he shall be released on interim bail. Adjourned to 28.05.2019, to await the report of the Investigating Officer." [7]. In CRM-M No.19330 of 2019, notice of motion was issued on 30.04.2019 and the petition was ordered to be listed along with CRM-M No.12488 of 2019. Interim order was also passed in the same terms as passed in CRM-M No.12488 of 2019. [8]. In CRM-M No.21330 of 2019, similar order was passed on 10.05.2019 and the petition was ordered to be listed along with CRM-M No.12488 of 2019. Interim order was passed in the same terms as passed in CRM-M No.12488 of 2019. [9]. Learned Senior counsel and other counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) submitted that the investigation in the complaint case is still going on and in view of interim protection granted by the High Court, the petitioners have been appearing before the Investigating Officer. The investigation in the complaint started on 18.02.2016. The complaint in question came to be filed on 31.08.2018. Petitioners have been summoned only on 02.11.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 17. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the appellant. This is a matter that will, of course, be dealt with by the trial judge. However, what is important, as far as we are concerned, is that during the entire period of investigations which appear to have been spread over seven months, the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar in order to have the details of the properties attached by the Department. As narrated above, the Department has already attached the properties of the petitioners as per valuation shown in the documents narrated in preceding paras of the judgment. [19]. Evidently, the investigation started in the complaint w.e.f. 18.02.2016. For more than 2½ years, the petitioners were never sought to be arrested, rather they were allowed to join the investigation by means of recording their statements and provisional attachment of their properties was also done. Petitioners could have been arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA, but the same was not done by the respondent- Department. Even as per reply submitted by Assistant Director/respondent in CRM-M No.21330 of 2019 titled 'Avtar Singh vs. Assistant Directorate of Enforcement, PMLA Jalandhar, para no.7 reas as under:- "Para 7:-That the contents of his Para require no reply except that the petitioner may be required to join investigation in future, in case any fresh fact/issue needs investigation. However, presence of accused before Investigating Officer is not immediately required for further investigation." [20]. ....