New Delhi: Observing that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has produced sufficient evidence, including the chain of events and statements of key witnesses, a special Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ranchi junked Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s plea to discharge him in a money-laundering probe related to a land parcel allegedly acquired illegally.
The court said, however, that it took a call with a “limited purpose” to examine if a prima facie case exists against Soren, and not that it was deciding his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This means Soren will have to go through with the trial to prove his innocence, if the court goes on to frame charges against him.
The particular case stems from an ED money-laundering probe initiated in 2022 over alleged fraudulent acquisition of land parcels in Ranchi. During raids related to this case, the agency had allegedly recovered 11 trunks of voluminous property documents, along with 17 original registers containing land records, including one owned and controlled by Soren. The agency has also says that it recovered a file from the chamber of then revenue inspector Bhanu Pratap Prasad, containing property documents for an 8.86-acre plot in Ranchi’s Bariatu area, which it claims Soren acquired.
Soren resigned as the state’s chief minister in January 2024, right before he was arrested by the ED in the same case on the 31st of the same month. The agency suffered a setback in June that year when the Jharkhand High Court granted him bail, observing that it had “reasons to believe” that the Soren was “not guilty” of the offence of money-laundering. The Supreme Court later upheld Soren’s bail, and he was soon back as chief minister. In November, Soren’s Jharkhand Mukti Morcha swept home in the Assembly elections, and Soren remained Chief Minister.
“Upon overall consideration of the complaint, supplementary complaint, statements u/s 50 of PMLA, documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances relied upon the prosecution, this court is of the opinion that material on record discloses more than a mere suspicion and raises a prima facie case against A-2. At this stage, the court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record finding on disputed questions of fact. The defence contention raised involve matters requiring examination during trial,” Special PMLA Judge Yogesh Kumar observed.
The court discarded the defence suggestion that the ED’s witnesses were unreliable, and its calling their versions “mere hearsay”. The court said that all those factors will be weighed during the trial proceedings. At the time of charge or discharge, the court has a limited concern—whether a grave suspicion has been raised against the accused. In the present case, the court said it did.
“The contention of the defence that the witnesses are unreliable or that their statements are hearsay cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage,” the judge further said. “Whether such witnesses are trustworthy and whether their statements withstand cross-examination are matters to be examined during trial. At the stage of discharge, the court is required to assume the prosecution material to be true for the limited purpose of determining whether the prima facie case exists,” he said.
‘Limited scope of the order’
Soren’s counsel, including senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, argued broadly on the point that the ED’s allegations about Soren’s ownership of 8.86 acres of land were based on hearsay statements by witnesses, and that the agency’s entire story was based on such hearsay.
On the other hand, ED counsels Zoheb Hossain and Ramit Satender argued that there was a long list of circumstantial evidence pieced together by the investigating officers, including witnesses, such as the caretaker of the land, who confirmed frequent visits by Soren and his wife, Kalpana Soren. Additionally, they also cited the agency’s recovery of files with endorsements such as ‘CMO URGENT PINTU’ from revenue officer Prasad, who personally made several inspections of the land parcel to drive home the ED’s allegations against Soren.
The ED has cited the statements of several key witnesses, such as Circle Officer Manoj Kumar, and Soren’s former press advisor, Abhishek Prasad alias Pintu, as well as the caretaker of the property, Santosh Munda. Having taken into account the submissions of the ED counsels, including the statements of the witnesses and Soren’s counsel questioning the reliability of those statements, the judge said that he was not deciding if Soren was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the test for the arguments was far narrower than a trial proceeding, with his scope limited to deciding if there was sufficient material to presume that the accused may have committed the offence.
Citing Munda’s statements before the ED, where he revealed that he also worked as a labourer during the construction of the boundary wall enclosing the land parcel and that he had seen Soren and his wife making visits to the land parcel at least on two occasions, the court said that he had spoken from his “direct experience on the basis of his ocular observation”, which suggests that Soren was exercising control over the land in question.
“Upon scrutiny of the statement of Santosh Munda, whose presence at the land appears to be as a caretaker, I find that his statement is to the effect that he worked as caretaker as also labourer having participated in the construction of boundary wall enclosing the entire land of 8.86 acres within one common boundary and he also appears to have seen A-2 and his wife visiting the property many times. Therefore, his statement is suggestive of the fact that A-2 was seen exercising control over the land,” the judge observed.
Additionally, the ED has also relied upon the statement of Pintu, who allegedly revealed to have instructed officials to conduct an inspection of the land parcel on Soren’s instructions. Moreover, the agency’s chargesheet also cites statements from nearly half-a-dozen owners of the land, who deposed before the agency that they had ownership of the land prior to their eviction around 2010-11.
“Materials summarised above gives strength to the ED’s contention that these materials though not really directed to prove legal ownership of A-2 over 8.86 acres land but are sufficient to prima facie establish A2’s conscious possession, control and beneficial enjoyment of the land, which is sufficient to attract Section 3 PMLA as the land is ‘proceeds of crime’. I think that at this stage these materials are sufficient because the court has only to examine whether there is grave suspicion or prima facie material,” the judge observed.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: Erring officials made to pay: Why Jharkhand HC ordered probe into illegal construction on govt land