Panchkula, Feb. 5 -- The court of additional sessions judge Himanshu Singh has committed the corruption case against former special CBI judge Sudhir Parmar to the court of the special CBI judge, Panchkula. The accused in the case include Sudhir Parmar, Ajay Parmar, Lalit Goyal and Roop Bansal, all residents of Gurugram, and Anil Bhalla from New Delhi. The case has been committed to Rajeev Goyal, Special judge, PMLA. He is also the Special CBI judge. But here he will hear the case in the capacity of a special judge, PMLA. The State Vigilance Bureau and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, had registered the case on April 17, 2023, under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case details, Sudhir Parmar, while posted as special judge for CBI and ED cases at Panchkula, allegedly showed undue favour to Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal, owners and promoters of the M3M Group, and to Lalit Goyal, owner and promoter of the IREO Group. The beneficiaries were accused in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and CBI cases pending before his court. It is alleged that the favours were extended in exchange for undue advantages. Source information also revealed instances of serious misconduct, abuse of official position, and demand and acceptance of bribes in cases pending before the judge. The FIR was registered after obtaining due permission from the chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court. The investigation further revealed that Sudhir Parmar remained in contact with the M3M Group through his nephew Ajay Parmar and communicated with Roop Bansal via FaceTime and WhatsApp using Ajay Parmar's phone. Call records and audio recordings provided by the source were also collected during the probe. The investigation agency also collected the voice samples of Sudhir Parmar, Vedpal Gupta and Roop Bansal. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the court. During the proceedings, accused Roop Bansal filed an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking commitment of the scheduled offence case to the special judge, Panchkula, designated for PMLA cases. The public prosecutor opposed the plea, arguing that such an application could only be moved by the director or an authorised officer of the Enforcement Directorate. After hearing both sides, the court observed that although the competent authority had not moved such an application, the provisions of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA could not be ignored merely because the application was filed by an accused....