9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 725 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - scheduled/predicate offence - illegal excavation and theft of coal from the leasehold area of ECL - main grievance of the petitioner is that he has been repeatedly summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement directing him to appear for questioning at the New Delhi office in connection with present ECIR, though he resides in Kolkata, West Bengal and the respondent has a zonal office in Kolkata. HELD THAT - It is apparent from the reading of Section 50 of PMLA as well as decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT that the power conferred upon the authorities by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA empower them to summon any person whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any records during the course of investigation or proceedings under PMLA. The persons so summoned are also bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and are required to state truth upon any subject concerning which such person is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required in a case. The investigation in the present ECIR is still continuing and the petitioner has only been summoned to appear and submit certain documents. Even otherwise, this Court has taken note of the order dated 10.05.2023 wherein the learned ASG had fairly submitted that the respondent will not take any action in respect of summons which have already been issued to the petitioner herein i.e. the nine summons issued to the petitioner till 21.03.2023, out of which the petitioner had appeared and got his statement recorded on one occasion - this Court finds no ground to quash the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA to the petitioner. Seeking quashing of ECIR - HELD THAT - This Court notes that the petitioner himself is not aware as to whether he is being summoned under Section 50 of PMLA as an accused or as a witness. It is also important to take note of the contents of the status report and the written submissions filed by respondent, i.e. Directorate of Enforcement in which it has been clearly stated that as of now, the respondent has not filed any prosecution complaint against the petitioner and he is yet not an accused in the present ECIR and it cannot be said that respondent is identifying the petitioner as an accused, in absence of any formal accusation to this effect. Since this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner s prayer for quashing of ECIR itself is premature as the status of the petitioner herein is not yet identified in the ECIR, thus, the contentions regarding cause of action in this case having arisen in State of West Bengal and prosecution complaints in ECIR being filed in New Delhi being illegal and without any jurisdiction, cannot be dealt with at this stage. This Court finds no ground to either quash the impugned summons or the ECIR registered by the respondent - This Court, however, is not deciding any question of law as to whether a man aged above 65 years can be summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 50 of PMLA at any place and whether the same will be in contravention of Section 160 of Cr.P.C., since the controversy involving applicability of Section 160 of Cr.P.C. to Section 50 of PMLA is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of NALINI CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ORS. 2018 (8) TMI 2080 - SC ORDER . It is directed that in the present case, the respondent will be at liberty to require the attendance of the petitioner herein (aged about 67 years) in its office situated at Kolkata by giving at least 24 hours notice - The petitioner being the Law Minister of the State of West Bengal itself where he wants to be examined will also ensure that no harm is caused to the officers of Directorate of Enforcement examining him at Kolkata as this relief is being granted to him at his request only. The present petition alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of ECIR and Summons under Section 50 of PMLA. 2. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Enforcement. 3. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. 4. Interim Order of No Coercive Steps. Summary: I. Quashing of ECIR and Summons under Section 50 of PMLA: The petitioner sought quashing of the ECIR and the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA. The court noted that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has the power to summon any person for evidence or documents during an investigation. The petitioner was summoned multiple times but appeared only once. The court found no grounds to quash the summons, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld the ED's power to summon individuals for investigation under PMLA. The court also referenced the decision in Kirit Shrimankar v. Union of India, which stated that apprehensions of arrest based on flimsy grounds are premature for seeking constitutional remedies. II. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Enforcement: The petitioner argued that the investigation should be conducted in Kolkata, where the alleged offenses occurred, rather than New Delhi. The court noted that the ED has jurisdiction to summon individuals irrespective of the location of the alleged offense. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M. Exports, which cautioned against High Courts interfering at the stage of summons issuance. III. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution: The petitioner argued that being compelled to appear and provide evidence violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court noted that the petitioner was not yet an accused and was only summoned for information or evidence. The court cited Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which clarified that Article 20(3) applies only when a person is formally accused and compelled to be a witness against themselves. IV. Interim Order of No Coercive Steps: The petitioner sought an interim order to prevent coercive steps by the ED. The court noted that the petitioner had not been arrested despite multiple summonses and had not appeared on most occasions. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which cautioned against granting no-coercive orders in petitions under Article 226 or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court found no grounds to grant such relief, emphasizing that the petitioner could seek anticipatory bail if apprehensive of arrest. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to quash the ECIR or the summons. The court directed the ED to summon the petitioner at its Kolkata office, considering his age and health, with adequate police protection. The court emphasized that the petitioner must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the ED as required.
|
