‘Plant and maintain 20 saplings’: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court suspended 73-year-old convict’s PMLA sentence

What was the case?

• The appellant had been convicted by a trial court on July 30, 2024, in a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA.
• He was sentenced to five years of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 30,000, with an additional five months’ imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
• The prosecution case stemmed from an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered in 2013 based on an FIR that included allegations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, cheating and forgery provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Arms Act, 1959.
• During the hearing, the senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that he had been acquitted in the predicate offence in 2019 and had also been acquitted in other criminal cases in which he had been implicated.
• He also pointed to the appellant’s advanced age and medical ailments, while noting that his appeal against conviction had already been admitted in August 2024.
• Opposing the plea, the ED contended that the appellant had actively participated in the crime and therefore did not deserve the benefit of suspension of sentence.

Court’s observations

• After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that the applicant was cited as accused in the predicate offence. However, he was acquitted in the trial.
• In the present complaint under Section 45(1) (cognisable and non-bailable offences) of the PMLA, the appellant was convicted under Section 4 (punishment for money laundering) of the PMLA.
• The custody certificate of the appellant has been produced in the court, which shows he underwent actual custody period of 1 year, 4 months and 27 days.
• The appeal preferred by him has since been admitted in the month of August, 2024, which may take sufficient long time for disposal.
• The 2024 appeal is not likely to be heard soon and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant-appellant in custody.
• Therefore, in these circumstances the remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant is hereby ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal.
• He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the chief judicial magistrate/duty magistrate concerned, subject to deposit of fine, if not already deposited.

Rash driving case

• In November last year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had released on probation a man held guilty for causing death due to rash and negligent driving, while also directing him to plant saplings of 50 indigenous trees.
• While releasing the convict, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj noted that the case warranted a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. The court was also informed that the matter has been amicably settled between the convict and the victim’s family members.
• A magisterial court had convicted the man under sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety), and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
• While referring to Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, the court noted that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity.