The court affirmed that the ED's authority under Section 50 of the PMLA to summon individuals is valid and does not violate procedural safeguards, as it prevails over the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 50 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 174 - Appeals against dismissal of writ petition and criminal motion challenging summons issued by ED - Appellants sought quashing of summons for personal appearance in New Delhi instead of Kolkata - High Court dismissed the petitions - Court held that Section 50 empowers ED to summon individuals without territorial restrictions, and the procedure under PMLA prevails over Cr.P.C. - The summons issued were deemed judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of PMLA. (Paras 1-23)

(B) Procedure Established by Law - The court emphasized that the powers under Section 50 of PMLA do not violate the right to fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the summons are not for prosecution but for inquiry. (Paras 10-20)

(C) Gender Neutrality - The court noted that Section 50 of PMLA is gender-neutral and does not provide special exemptions for women, reinforcing the need for compliance with the law. (Paras 16-20)

Facts of the case:
The Appellants challenged summons issued by the ED under Section 50 of PMLA for their appearance in New Delhi, arguing for compliance with territorial jurisdiction and procedural safeguards.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appeals, affirming the validity of the summons and the authority of the ED to issue them without territorial limitations.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA and the applicability of procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of PMLA, particularly Section 50, provide adequate authority for the ED to summon individuals, and the procedure established under PMLA prevails over Cr.P.C.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

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 he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9644

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAABHISHEK BANERJEE – AppellantVersusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – RespondentCrl.A. No.-002221-002222 - 2023

The court affirmed that the ED's authority under Section 50 of the PMLA to summon individuals is valid and does not violate procedural safeguards, as it prevails over the Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHISHEK BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-002221-002222 - 2023