Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sheel Nagu, C.J., Vikas Suri, J.
Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 34235 of 2024
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Protection - Summons - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 50(2) - The court emphasized the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, preventing an accused from being compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence, influencing the decision to quash the summons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a summons issued under Section 50(2) of the PMLA, claiming it violated his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as he was already an accused in a related FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summons could not compel the petitioner to make self-incriminating statements while he was an accused, affirming the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the summons issued under Section 50(2) of the PMLA can compel an accused to provide self-incriminating evidence against himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fundamental right under Article 20(3) protects an accused from being compelled to testify against himself, which applies to proceedings under the PMLA.
Result: The summons was quashed as it violated the petitioner's right against self-incrimination.
JUDGMENT :
Sheel Nagu, C.J.
Challenge herein is to the summon issued under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PMLA’) requiring the petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 9 dated 25.08.2022, registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Panchkula (SVB), Haryana, under Sections 379, 414, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to appear before the Investigating Officer issuing the said summon on 19.07.2024 to give evidence in connection with the said investigation.
2. The sole ground of challenge raised by the petitioner as projected by Shri Vikram Chaudhri, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Advocate is that the said impugned summon is hit by the protective shield of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner/accused is protected against divulging any incriminating voluntary statement as a witness against himself.
3. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Ms. Meghna Malik, Central Government counsel appearing for Directorate of Enforcement are heard at length.
4. The only apprehension of the petitioner is that once he has been arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 9 of dated 25.08.2022, as aforesaid, then he cannot be summoned as a witness to be compelled to make any incriminating statement against himself. It is further contended by learned senior counsel that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act statutorily makes it incumbent upon a witness to attend and state truth failing which the witness can be prosecuted and punished. Thus it is urged that compulsion of stating the truth, which may be self incriminatory, runs contrary to the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
5. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in Yash Tuteja and another vs. Union of India and others [ (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2023 decided on 08.04.2024), Balasaheb alias Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra and another [] : (2011) 1 SCC 364, Raman Lal Bhogilal Shah and another vs. D.K.Guha and others (1973)1 SCC 696, Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary vs. Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929, Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others 2023 SCC Online SC 1244, The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another vs. Sh. A.J.Rana and others (1972)1 SCC 240 and Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC Online SC 1703.
6. This Court may not enter into the prolixity of considering all the judicial verdicts relied upon by the petitioner since the fundamental right of an accused not to be compelled to make self incriminatory statement available under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is all pervading and omnipresent qua every kind of criminal prosecution including PMLA. For ready reference and convenience, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereinbelow:-
7. The said fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is available to be exercised as a shield by every accused in an offence punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which undoubtedly is a criminal law, promulgated to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
8. It is further not disputed at the Bar that the petitioner is an accused as per FIR No. 9 dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-10) where offence punishable under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is one of the scheduled offences under PMLA. It seems that petitioner has been su
AI
An accused cannot be compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence under the PMLA due to the protection granted by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
(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 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) Immunity against self-incrimination Qualified privilege under proviso to Section 132 of Evidence Act does not grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness and....
The court established that proceedings under the Customs Act for adjudication and prosecution are independent, allowing for simultaneous actions, and that summons issued under Section 108 are valid e....
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....
Money Laundering – After provisional attachment of property under Section 5(1) of Act, 2002, it is incumbent on Adjudicating Authority to issue notice to person whose property has been provisionally ....
The court established that summons under the PMLA can only be challenged on limited grounds, emphasizing the importance of allowing the competent authority to adjudicate the merits of the case.
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
