2022 (8) TMI 1329 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking appropriate relief with regard to a summons issued to the petitioner under Sections 50 (2) and (3) of the PMLA, 2002 - certain relaxations in the matter of the power of a police officer to require attendance of witnesses particularly where the witness is a woman - whether the petitioner should come within the framework of Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.? HELD THAT - Admittedly, the two other persons who were granted relief by the Supreme Court come under the same ECIR which is ECIR/17/HIU/2020. There is hence no basis for disallowing the prayer of the petitioner being questioned by the E.D. at its zonal office in Kolkata. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the proceedings. This is also the submission of the E.D. The decisions shown on behalf of the E.D. do not apply in the facts of the present case since the petitioner therein had prayed for quashing of the proceedings. Hence, an interim measure of protection, the Enforcement Directorate is directed to question the petitioner at its zonal office at Kolkata in September or whenever the petitioner is summoned by the E.D. List this matter after five weeks.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional issue of summoning petitioner in Delhi or Kolkata under PMLA, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief regarding a summons issued under Sections 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA, 2002 by the Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) to report in Delhi for an ongoing investigation related to an alleged offence under ECIR 17/HIU/2020 concerning coal theft in West Bengal. The petitioner, linked to a political figure's wife, argued for being summoned in Kolkata, citing similar Supreme Court orders for others. The E.D. contended that PMLA overrides Cr.P.C. provisions, opposing Kolkata summoning due to confidential documents in Delhi. However, the High Court focused on whether the petitioner should be summoned in Delhi or Kolkata, not on Cr.P.C. applicability or quashing the summons.

The Court found the E.D.'s argument of exclusive Delhi documents unconvincing, as the alleged offence and cause of action were in West Bengal, where the petitioner resides. Referring to a Supreme Court order, the Court directed the E.D. to summon petitioners in Kolkata with a 24-hour notice, similar to others in the ECIR, who were not accused. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's situation differs from previous cases where proceedings were sought to be quashed, emphasizing the need for the E.D. to question the petitioner in Kolkata for fairness.

As an interim measure, the High Court directed the E.D. to question the petitioner in Kolkata at its zonal office, providing protection until the next hearing. The E.D. was instructed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner during this period. The Court allowed the E.D. to file affidavits, with timelines set for filing and replying to ensure procedural fairness. The matter was listed for a follow-up after five weeks, maintaining the protection from coercive actions by the E.D. until then.