Allotment of industrial plots: ED moves HC challenging stay in trial against Hooda
Nearly six months after a PMLA special court at Panchkula stayed the trial proceedings against former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the order.
PMLA court had stayed trial
Six months ago, a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) special court at Panchkula had stayed the trial proceedings against former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in a case pertaining to the allotment of industrial plots.
‘Changed criteria’
It contended that Hooda, the then chairman of HUDA, kept the file with himself for finalisation of allotment criteria for a long duration. He misused his official position and changed the criteria on January 24, 2016, after the January 6, 2016, deadline for inviting the applications
Taking up the matter, Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu on Tuesday issued a notice of motion on the plea before fixing December 9 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
The matter was argued by Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju with ED counsel Dr Neha Awasthi. Among other things, the ED submitted that the matter pertained to allotment of industrial plots. Hooda, the then chairman of HUDA, kept the file with himself for finalisation of allotment criteria for a long duration. He misused his official position and changed the criteria on January 24, 2016, after the January 6, 2016, deadline for inviting the applications.
The allotment of plots was not made in accordance to the proposed criteria. It was changed after the deadline had elapsed and the plots were allotted to ineligible applicants in a wrongful manner.
The ED, in its application, added that a prosecution complaint was filed before the special court at Panchkula in February 2021 after conducting investigation under the provisions of the PMLA.
The court took cognisance of the complaint in February 2021. But the court, vide the impugned order dated May 15, paused the PMLA trial case proceedings "till the filing of the final report by the CBI".
Going into the grounds for challenging the order, the ED stated that the special judge erroneously ignored the fact that money laundering offence was independent. As such, the stay on trial proceedings, on the basis of stay on the proceedings related to the scheduled offence, was bad in law.
It was added that the special court, while passing the impugned order, ignored the statutory provisions, which provide that trial under the PMLA would not be dependent upon any other order passed in "respect of the scheduled offence and the same shall be conducted separately".
It was added that there was no embargo on continuing the trial proceedings under the PMLA pending the filing of the final report by the "predicate agency" as it was "imbibed in the scheme of PMLA that the trial for the offence of money laundering and scheduled offences are separate and independent of each other".
The plea added that halting the trial under the PMLA “until the filing of the final report in the scheduled offence would have serious consequences on pending PMLA trials across the country. This would lead to thwarting of meritorious money laundering cases at the threshold and would adversely impact the interest of the directorate”.
'Changed criteria'
It contended that Hooda, the then chairman of HUDA, kept the file with himself for finalisation of allotment criteria for a long duration. He misused his official position and changed the criteria on January 24, 2016, after the January 6, 2016, deadline for inviting the applications
