Sunil Sharma v. Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement

CRM-M-33853-2021 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.33853 of 2021

Reserved on: 03.09.2024

Pronounced on: 16.09.2024 Sunil Sharma

...Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vineet Jhakhar, Advocate and Mr. Gurminder Singh Phull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate for the respondent-ED.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Complaint No.

Dated Court COMA/02/2021 20.01.2021 Special Judge under PML Act, Haryana at Panchkula 1.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application seeking supply of complete copy of complaint alongwith list of witnesses appended as Annexure A and relied upon documents as Annexure B and imposition of a cost of Rs. 10,000/-each on the petitioner, the accused-petitioner mentioned in the above petition has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC.

2.

In the order dated 27-01-2021, Ld. Special judge of the PMLA Court observed that the case had 28000 pages of documents.

3.

In the order dated 23-03-2021 ld. Special judge of the PMLA Court observed that a copy of the complaint and complete relied-upon documents have been supplied to the accused, namely, Deepak Sharma, Ms Sunil Sharma, Manish Grover, Radhey Shyam and Bansi Lal, and their joint statement in this regard has also been recorded. 4.

Similarly, as per the impugned order, it has been explicitly mentioned by learned the Special Judge of the PMLA Court, that vide order dated 23-03-2021, a copy of the complaint and complete relied-upon documents have been supplied to the accused, namely, Deepak Sharma, Sunil Sharma, and Manish Grover, and their joint statement in Sonia Puri 2024.09.18 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-33853-2021 -2this regard has also been recorded. The stand of the accused about the non-supply of the documents appears to be a delaying tactic. 5.

Given above, the present petition is dismissed except for the imposition of costs. The impugned order is upheld on all counts except for the imposition of costs. Thus, the petitioners shall not be required to pay the costs; if he has already paid in that case, same be refunded to him and order qua cost part is set aside. Petition dismissed in terms above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.09.2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

NO.

Sonia Puri 2024.09.18 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document