Back
No Court Permission Needed for ED's Under PMLA Before Trial:
No Prior Nod Needed: Calcutta HC Clears ED for Further PMLA Probe Before Trial
In a significant ruling with implications for money laundering prosecutions, the has held that the is not required to seek to conduct under the as long as the trial has not yet commenced. Justice Krishna Rao dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, who had challenged Section 50 notices issued to him and his wife during the pendency of proceedings before the .
Background: From CBI Case to ED Notices
The case began with a case registered in 2013 against Kejriwal, his wife Alka Kejriwal, and their son for alleged offences under the and the . The CBI filed a charge sheet in . On , the ED registered an treating the CBI charge sheet as the . After completing its investigation, the ED filed a before the in .
While the matter was pending, the ED issued summons under to Alka Kejriwal on , and to Mahesh Kejriwal on , directing them to appear and produce evidence. The Kejriwals sought adjournments citing illness, but the ED pressed ahead. Challenging these notices, Mahesh Kejriwal moved the High Court, arguing that the ED could not revive investigation without the 's permission.
Petitioner's Plea: Seeking Court Permission for
, representing Kejriwal, submitted that the ED had already filed its final complaint, and the trial was pending. He argued that during the pendency of trial required from the . Relying on the 's judgment in and the order in , he contended that the investigating agency must obtain prior court authorization before conducting .
ED's Stand: Statutory Power Under Section 44 PMLA
Appearing for the ED, countered that , read with its Explanation, provides a statutory right to conduct without court permission. He emphasized that gives the Act an over other laws. He cited the 's decision in , which had held that an investigating agency is not required to pray for permission for , a view upheld by the when dismissing the SLP against that judgment. Additionally, he referred to the 's order in , which clarified that under Section 50 PMLA is permissible.
Court's Analysis: Trial Not Yet Commenced, Statutory Right of Investigation
Justice Krishna Rao began by noting that
"
."
Since the
had not yet framed charges—and had only recently rejected the petitioner's
on
—the trial had not begun. Therefore, the
, which requires court permission for
during trial, was not triggered.
The Court then examined , which opens with a . Referring to the 's landmark judgment in
, the Court observed that
"
is a
of the authorized agency
."
The Explanation to Section 44 explicitly states that the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of
to bring further evidence against any accused.
Distinguishing the petitioner's reliance on
Pramod Kumar
, the Court noted that the in that case considered only , not the specific scheme under Section 44 PMLA. The Court also quoted from
Debabrata Halder
:
"an investigating agency is not required to pray for permission for
of the case which is a settled principle of law."
Precedents Reinforce ED's Stand
The Court drew support from several rulings, including , , and , all holding that under Section 173(8) CrPC is permissible even after filing of the and does not require prior permission. In , the held that can continue even after the magistrate has taken .
Final Ruling: Writ Dismissed
Concluding that the ED's issuance of notices to the Kejriwals was a valid exercise of its statutory power, Justice Krishna Rao dismissed the writ petition. The Court held:
"Considering the above, this Court did not find any reasons to interference with the
initiated by the Enforcement Directorate by issuing notice to the petitioner."
The judgment reaffirms that the ED's power of under the PMLA is not circumscribed by the requirement of court permission before the commencement of trial. Parties were directed to act on a server copy of the judgment.
