Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2221-2222 of 2023
Decided on : 09-09-2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 50 read with Section 65 and 71 – Prevention of Money-Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and Manner of Forwarding Reasons and Material to Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records and Period of Retention) Rules, 2005 – Rule 11 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 91 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 94] – Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Issuance of summons – Quashing petition – Provisions of PMLA are not only to investigate into offence of money laundering but more importantly to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering – PMLA is a self-contained Code and dispensations envisaged thereunder, must prevail – At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of Constitution, same being not testimonial compulsion – Consequences of Article 20(3) of Constitution or Section 25 of Evidence Act may come into play only if involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by ED official – No illegality in summons issued by respondent-ED summoning Appellants to its Office at Delhi, which also has territorial jurisdiction, a part of offence having been allegedly committed by accused persons as alleged in complaint – All persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorized agents – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Both these Appeals are arising out of Common Impugned Order dated 11.03.2022 passed by High Court of Delhi in W.P (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2021 and Crl. M.C. No. 2442 of 2021, filed by Appellants (Original Petitioners), whereby High Court has dismissed the same. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2021 was filed by Appellants, seeking quashing of Summons dated 10.09.2021 issued to them by Respondent – ED under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and seeking further direction against Respondent not to issue any Summons under Section 50 of Act to Appellants for their appearance in New Delhi, rather than their hometown/ place of domicile i.e. Kolkata.
Findings of Court:
Section 50 enables authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during course of proceedings under the Act, and that persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Both these Appeals are arising out of the Common Impugned Order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2021 and Crl. M.C. No. 2442 of 2021, filed by the Appellants (Original Petitioners), whereby the High Court has dismissed the same.
2. The Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2021 was filed by the Appellants - Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee seeking quashing of the Summons dated 10.09.2021 issued to them by the Respondent – ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “PMLA”), and seeking further direction against the Respondent not to issue any Summons under Section 50 of the said Act to the Appellants for their appearance in New Delhi, rather than their hometown/ place of domicile i.e. Kolkata. The Crl. M.C. No. 2442 of 2021 was filed by the Appellant - Rujira Banerjee seeking quashing of the Complaint dated 13.09.2021 filed by the respondent-ED against her for the offence under Section 174 of India Penal Code (IPC), and for quashing the Order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Patiala House, New Delhi taking cognizance of the complaint, as also the Order dated 30.09.2021 summoning her, passed by the said Court.
3. The facts in the nutshell are that an FIR/R.C. bearing No. RC0102020A0022 came to be registered by the CBI, ACB, Kolkata on 27.11.2020 for the offences under Section 120B and 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “PC Act”), in respect of alleged illegal excavation and theft of Coal taking place in the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) by one Anup Majee alias Lala with the active connivance of certain employees of ECL. Based on the said FIR, on 28.11.2020, an ECIR bearing No. 17/HIU/2020 came to be registered by the Respondent at their Head Investigative Unit situated at New Delhi.
4. During the course of investigation of the FIR in respect of theft of Coal and illegal excavation being done by the criminal elements in the leasehold area of ECL, a large number of vehicles/ equipments used in the illegal coal mining and its transportation were seized. It was also found that the said case involved money laundering to the tune of Rs. 1300 Crores. According to the Respondent – ED one of the accused Vikas Mishra was arrested on 16.03.2021 and another accused Inspector Ashok Mishra of Bankura Police Station was arrested on 03.04.2021, who had become part of illegal Coal mafia and had helped in laundering several hundred crores of rupees. It was also found during the course of investigation that Inspector Ashok Kumar Mishra had allegedly received Rs.168 crores in just 109 days from the co-accused Anup Majee, to be delivered to his political bosses including co-accused Vinay Mishra. The said Rs.168 crores were allegedly transferred through vouchers to Delhi and Overseas.
5. On 22.07.2021, the Respondent issued Summons to the Appellant No.1 under Section 50 of PMLA seeking his personal appearance on 03.08.2021 in New Delhi with the documents sought for. Again on 04.08.2021, another Summons were issued to the Appellant No.1 seeking the same documents as sought in Summons dated 22.07.2021 for remaining present on 12.08.2021 in New Delhi. The Appellant No.2 was also issued Summons on 04.08.2021 under Section 50 of PMLA for her personal appearance in New Delhi on 13.08.2021 along with the documents/records stated in the said Summons. Both the Appellants did not remain present as directed and furnished their respective replies on 12.08.2021 seeking time to comply with the said Summons. The Respondent again issued Summons on 18.08.2021 requiring the Appellant No.1 to remain present in New Delhi on 06.09.2021 and Appellant No.2 to remain present in New Delhi on 01.09.2021. The Appellant No.2 replied to the Summons dated 18.08.2021 requesting the Respondent to examine her at Kolkata
Money Laundering – Issuance of summons – PMLA is a self-contained Code and dispensations envisaged thereunder, must prevail – At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection unde....
Sections of CrPC would apply only if the field is not covered, in any manner, by the provisions of the special enactment by way of the PMLA.
(1) There is a statutory right of police to investigate cognizable crime without requiring any authority from judicial authority – Functions of judiciary and police are complementary, not overlapping....
The Enforcement Directorate can issue summons for further investigation under the PMLA Act without prior permission from the Special Court, and this does not violate the accused's rights under Articl....
(1) A person who is named in ECIR cannot seek its quashing.(2) Right against self-incrimination – Mere issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA for the purpose of giving information or evidence w....
The powers of the Directorate of Enforcement to issue summons under Section 50 of PMLA empower them to summon any person for the purpose of collecting information or evidence, and the protection unde....
(1) Money laundering – Law does not mandate taking of prior permission from Magistrate for carrying out further investigation, even after filing of charge-sheet.(2) Mere issuance of summons to accuse....
The regulatory authority possesses the power to initiate independent inquiries into proceeds of crime. An internal investigative document is not a statutory requirement, and the registration of a pre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
