The Preeminent Court on September 9, 2024, conveyed its decision within the case of Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. vs Directorate of Authorization, dismissing the requests recorded by the appellants against the summons issued by the Requirement Directorate (ED) beneath the Anticipation of Cash Washing Act (PMLA), 2002. The judgment, conveyed by Equity Bela M. Trivedi, offers noteworthy experiences into the interaction between the PMLA and the Criminal Strategy Code (Cr.P.C.), particularly concerning the ED's powers of examination and summoning beneath the Act.
Case Background
The appellants, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, had drawn closer the Incomparable Court challenging the rejection of their petitions by the Delhi Tall Court. They looked for to suppress the summons issued by the ED beneath Area 50 of the PMLA, which ordered their individual appearance in Unused Delhi. The appellants fought that the summons ought to require their nearness in their hometown, Kolkata, where the ED incorporates a zonal office.
The case has its roots in an FIR enlisted by the CBI on November 27, 2020, concerning charged illicit coal mining and cash washing exercises including a whole of ₹1300 crores. The ED, taking after the FIR, enrolled an Authorization Case Data Report (ECIR) and issued summons to both appellants. In any case, the appellants challenged the ED's choice to summon them to Unused Delhi, contending it was past the agency's regional purview and a infringement of their principal rights.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court made it clear that the provisions of the PMLA override any inconsistent provisions of the Cr.P.C., stating that:
"The dispensation regarding Prevention of Money Laundering, Attachment of Proceeds of Crime, and Inquiry/Investigation of offence of Money Laundering…is fully governed by the provisions of the said Act itself. The jurisdictional police who is governed by the regime of Chapter XII of the Code, cannot register the offence of money laundering, nor can investigate into it, in view of the special procedure prescribed under the PMLA."
The Court further emphasized that Section 50 of the PMLA is a gender-neutral provision and does not distinguish between male and female individuals regarding summons. It noted:
There are glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in Section 50 of PMLA and Section 160/161 of Cr.P.C. The process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not 'Investigation' in the strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution."
Key Observations
Gender-Neutral Provisions: The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that, as a homemaker and mother, Rujira Banerjee should be given special consideration under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. It held that Section 50 of the PMLA does not provide any such exception, and the summons issued to her was lawful.
Conclusion
The Court's verdict holds implications for individuals facing investigations under the PMLA, emphasizing that territorial limitations and gender-based exceptions under the Cr.P.C. do not curtail the ED’s investigative powers. As the ED continues its inquiry into this high-profile case, the appellants will have to comply with the summons and appear before the ED in New Delhi as directed.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: PMLA Prevention of Money Laundering Act Enforcement Directorate Supreme Court Abhishek Banerjee Rujira Banerjee summons Section 50 CrPC territorial jurisdiction gender-neutral.
