Supreme Court of India
ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 668
- Decided
- 9 September 2024
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- BELA M TRIVEDI
Holding
Section 50 of the PMLA authorises the Enforcement Directorate to summon any person for evidence or document production irrespective of territorial location, and such summons are valid and not barred by Articles 20(3) or 21 of the Constitution.
Summary
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued multiple summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) requiring the appellants, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, to appear in Delhi and produce documents related to a coal theft and money‑laundering investigation. The appellants challenged the summons, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction, procedural deficiencies, and violation of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the PMLA is a self‑contained code whose provisions, including the power to summon, have overriding effect over the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the summons were valid because the offence had a nexus to Delhi and the ED’s headquarters have pan‑India jurisdiction. The Court also affirmed that Section 50 summons are not testimonial compulsion and therefore not barred by Article 20(3). Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the validity of the summons and the pending complaint.
Issues considered
- The validity of summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA when the alleged offence has a nexus to Delhi but the summonses require appearance in Delhi rather than the appellants' domicile.
- Whether the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sections 160/161, apply to summons under the PMLA.
- Whether Section 50 summons infringe Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The extent of territorial jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate’s headquarters and zonal offices under the PMLA.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 160, s. 161, s. 162, s. 4(2), s. 5, s. 91
- Constitution of Indias. Article 20(3), s. Article 21
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 25
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 174, s. 193, s. 228
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s. 50, s. 51, s. 63, s. 65, s. 71
- Prevention of Money Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the Manner of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records, and the Period of Retention) Rules, 2005
Subjects
Quashing of summonsEnforcement DirectoratePersonal appearanceIllegal excavation and theft of coalTerritorial jurisdictionOffence of money launderingPrevention of money launderingConfiscation of propertyDispensationsArrestSearch and seizureAttachmentInvestigationAttendance of witnessesExamination of witnesses by policeInformation to the Police and their Powers to InvestigateJudicial proceedingsTestimonial compulsionProcedure established by law
Judgment
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 110 : 2024 INSC 668
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr.
v.
Directorate of Enforcement
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-2222 of 2023)
09 September 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the
appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal
appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining
to the FIR registered in respect of alleged illegal excavation and
theft of Coal, against the accused.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power of
authorities regarding summons, production of documents and
to give evidence – Registration of FIR in respect of alleged illegal
excavation and theft of Coal in leasehold areas of Coalfields –
Issuance of repeated summons to the appellants u/s. 50 by the
Enforcement Directorate seeking their personal appearance
in New Delhi with the documents sought for, however, they
failed to remain present, though appellant no. 1 appeared
once – Meanwhile, complaint filed by the ED against appellant
no. 2 for non-compliance of summons – Writ Petition by the
appellants seeking quashing of the summons issued to them
by the ED and seeking further direction against the ED not
to issue any summons to the appellants for their appearance
in New Delhi, rather than their hometown-Kolkata – Also
miscellaneous case by appellant no 2 seeking quashing of the
complaint and the order taking cognizance of the complaint,
as also the summoning order – Dismissal of the writ petitions
and the miscellaneous case – Challenge to:
Held: Present ECIR is recorded at the Headquaters Investigation
Unit, which is not restricted to any territorial jurisdiction – Further,
as per the specific case of the ED in the complaint, filed against
the accused persons before the Special Court, PMLA New Delhi,
Rs.168 Crores were allegedly received by the Inspector from the
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 111
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
co-accused to be delivered to his political bosses, and the said
Rs. 168 Crores were transferred through vouchers to Delhi and
Overseas, which clearly established adequate nexus of the offence
and the offenders with the territory of Delhi – Thus, no illegality
in the summons issued by the ED summoning the appellants to
its Office at Delhi, which also has the territorial jurisdiction, a part
of the offence having been allegedly committed by the accused
persons as alleged in the complaint – Also appellant No. 1 being a
Member of Parliament has also an official residence at Delhi – In
view thereof, no substance in the challenge made by the appellants
to the Summons issued to the appellants u/s. 50 – Furthermore,
though the appellant No. 2 before the High Court had challenged
the order taking cognizance of the complaint and the order
summoning her before the Court, she did not even bother to produce
the said Orders before this Court – Since the said complaint is
pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, no opinion/
expressed on the merits of the said complaint – No illegality
found in the said orders passed by the concerned court and that
the said complaint to be proceeded further by the said court in
accordance with law. [Paras 20-22]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Object and
scope of:
Held: Provisions of PMLA are not only to investigate into the
offence of money laundering but more importantly to prevent money
laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived
from or involved in money laundering and the matters connected
therewith and incidental thereto – PMLA is a self-contained Code
and the dispensations envisaged thereunder, must prevail in terms
of s. 71 thereof, which predicates that the provisions of the Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force, which includes
provisions of the Cr.P.C – s. 65 predicates that the provisions of
the Cr.P.C. shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of the PMLA in respect of arrest, search and seizure,
attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other
proceedings under the Act – Thus, having regard to the conjoint
reading of s. 71 and s. 65 of the PMLA as also s. 4(2) and s. 5
CrPC, the provisions of PMLA will have the effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force, including the provisions of the Cr.P.C. [Para 13]
112 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Power to
investigate under – Application of the provisions of Chapter
XII CrPC:
Held: Dispensation regarding Prevention of Money Laundering,
Attachment of Proceeds of Crime, and Inquiry/Investigation of
offence of Money Laundering including issuing summons, recording
of statements, calling upon persons for production of documents etc.
upto filing of the Complaint in respect of offence u/s. 3 of PMLA is
fully governed by the provisions of the said Act itself – Jurisdictional
police who is governed by the regime of Chapter XII CrPC, cannot
register the offence of money laundering, nor can investigate into
it, in view of the special procedure prescribed under the PMLA
with regard to the registration of offence and inquiry/investigation
thereof, and that the special procedure must prevail in terms of
s. 71 PMLA – Submission that the sweep of s. 160 Cr.P.C would
extend to summoning any person irrespective of whether that
person is an accused of that offence or a mere witness, cannot be
accepted since the provisions of Chapter XII CrPC (under which
s. 160 falls) do not apply in all respects to deal with information
derived relating to the commission of money laundering offence
much less investigation thereof. [Paras 14, 15]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power
of authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
s.160/161 – Police officer’s power to require attendance of
witnesses and examination of witnesses by police – Glaring
inconsistencies between s. 50 PMLA and s. 160/161 Cr.P.C:
Held: Apart from the fact that s. 50 is a gender neutral, as it does
not make any distinction between a man and a woman, there
are glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in
s. 50 PMLA and s.160/161 Cr.P.C – Chapter XII Cr.P.C pertains
to the “Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate”
wherein s.160 empowers the Police Officer making an investigation
under the said Chapter to require any person to attend within the
limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information
given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case – Whereas, the process envisaged by
s. 50 PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds
of crime and is not “Investigation” in strict sense of the term for
initiating prosecution; and the authorities referred to in s. 48
PMLA are not the Police Officers – Statements recorded by the
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 113
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
authorities u/s. 50 PMLA are not hit by Art. 20(3) or Art. 21 of the
Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in
the course of inquiry are deemed to be the Judicial proceedings
in terms of s. 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the
statements made by any person to a Police Officer in the course
of an investigation under Chapter XII CrPC could not be used
for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to
s. 162 CrPC – In view of such glaring inconsistencies between
s. 50 PMLA and s. 160/161 Cr.P.C, the provisions of s. 50 PMLA
would prevail in terms of s. 71 read with s. 65 thereof. [Para 16]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power of
authorities regarding summons, production of documents and
to give evidence – Procedure prescribed u/r. 11 of the Rules,
2005 – Following of, by the Summoning Officer – Requirement:
Held: R. 11 of the Rules 2005, requires the Summoning Officer to
follow the procedure as prescribed therein, i.e., to issue Summons
in Form V appended to the said Rules – Prescribed Form V requires
Summoning Officer to mention not only the Name, Designation
and Address of the Summoning Officer but also the details of the
persons summoned as also the documents sought therein – Foot
note of Form V also mentions that the proceedings shall be deemed
to be judicial proceedings, and if the person summoned fails to give
evidence as mentioned in the Schedule, he would be liable to penal
proceedings under the Act – Thus, there being specific procedure
prescribed under the Statutory Rules of 2005 for summoning the
person under sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 50 of the Act, the same
would prevail over any other procedure prescribed under the Code,
particularly the procedure contemplated in s. 160/161 CrPC, as
also the procedure for production of documents contemplated in s.
91 of the Code, in view of the overriding effect given to the PMLA
over the other Acts including the Cr.P.C. u/s. 71 r/w s. 65 of the
PMLA – Prevention of Money-Laundering (Forms, Search and
Seizure or Freezing and the Manner of Forwarding the Reasons
and Material to the Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and Custody
of Records and the Period of Retention) Rules, 2005. [Para 17]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power
of authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence – At the stage of issue of summons,
protection u/Art. 20(3) of the Constitution, if can be claimed
by the person:
114 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: s. 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to
any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving
evidence or to produce any records during the course of the
proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is
bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state
truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or
is expected to make statement and produce documents as may
be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of s. 50 – At the stage of
issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection u/Art. 20(3)
of the Constitution, the same being not “testimonial compulsion” –
At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose
of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property
being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as
such – Summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry
so conducted by the authorized officers – Consequences of Art.
20(3) or s. 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play only if the
involvement of such person is revealed and his or her statements
is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official. [Para 19]
Case Law Cited
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others
[2022] 6 SCR 382 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 – relied on.
Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023] 3 SCR 892 :
(2023) 4 SCC 357 – referred to
List of Acts
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Prevention of Money-
Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the
Manner of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating
Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records and the Period of
Retention) Rules, 2005; Penal Code 1860; Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Quashing of summons; Enforcement Directorate; Personal
appearance; Illegal excavation and theft of Coal; Territorial
jurisdiction; Offence of money laundering; Prevent money
laundering; Confiscation of property; Dispensations; Arrest; Search
and seizure; Attachment; Investigation; Attendance of witnesses;
Examination of witnesses by police; Information to the Police and
their Powers to Investigate; Judicial proceedings; Testimonial
compulsion; Procedure established by law.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 115
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2221-
2222 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 1808 of 2021 and CRLMC No.
2442 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, SG, Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Kapil Sibal, Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Adit Pujari, Amit Bhandari, Ms. Aprajita Jamwal, Ms.
Arshiya Ghose, Vishwajeet Singh Bhatti, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey,
Udayaditya Banerjee, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Guntur
Pramod Kumar, A.K. Panda, Rajat Nair, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Harish
Pandey, Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sanchit Garga,
Madhav Gupta, Shashwat Jaiswal, Ms. Astha Sharma, Nipun Saxena,
Sanjeev Kaushik, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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
116 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 117
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
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
her at Kolkata as there was a functional office of the Respondent in
Kolkata and the alleged cause of action had arisen in West Bengal.
The Appellant No. 1 in due compliance to the Summons dated
18.08.2021 appeared before the Respondent – ED on 06.09.2021
at New Delhi, however he was again issued Summons on the same
day seeking his personal appearance along with the documents in
New Delhi on 08.09.2021. The Appellant No. 1 did not appear before
the respondent however, submitted a reply on 08.09.2021 requesting
for four weeks’ time to collect and collate the documents sought. The
Appellant No. 1 was further served with another Summons dated
10.09.2021 seeking his appearance in New Delhi on 21.09.2021.
The said summons came to be challenged by the appellants by filing
the W.P. (Crl.) No. 1808/2021 before the High Court.
6. On 13.09.2021, the Respondent filed a Complaint against the
Appellant No. 2 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
House, New Delhi under Section 190 (1)(a) r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C.
r/w Section 63(4) PMLA, alleging the commission of the offence
under Section 174 of IPC for non-compliance of the Summons dated
04.08.2021 and 18.08.2021. The said Court vide the Order dated
18.09.2021 took cognizance of the impugned offence and issued
Summons to the Appellant No. 2 for her personal appearance on
30.09.2021. The Appellant No. 2 on 30.09.2021 appeared virtually
and sought exemption from personal appearance. The Learned
CMM passed an Order allowing the exemption application for that
day only, and directed the Appellant No. 2 to remain personally
present before the Court on 12.10.2021. The said complaint filed
by the respondent and the said orders passed by the CMM Court
came to be challenged by the Appellant Rujira by filing the Crl. M.C
No. 2442 of 2021 before the High Court.
7. As stated earlier, both the W.P. (Crl.) No. 1808/2021 and Crl. M.C.
No. 2442/2021 came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the
impugned order.
118 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
8. The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for the
Appellant No. 1 – Abhishek Banerjee made lengthy submissions,
the crux of which may be stated as under: -
i. Section 50 of the PMLA merely indicates the substantive
power of ED to summon but does not provide the procedure
for exercise of such power.
ii. The procedure relating to territoriality of investigation, or power
to summon sick, or infirm/ women/ children and record their
statements has not been provided under Section 50 PMLA, as
it is provided under Section 160 and 161 Cr.P.C.
iii. Power without guidance for manner in which it is to be exercised
could not be said to be fair, just and reasonable procedure
established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution.
iv. A combined reading of Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 65 PMLA
would show that the application of the Code is not barred as
long as the provisions of the Code are consistent with the PMLA.
v. The Judgment of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
Others vs. Union of India and Others1 has not dealt with the
issue of procedure for summoning under Section 50 of the PMLA.
vi. The Cr.P.C. provides that the existence of the territorial nexus
to the commission of a crime is a jurisdictional threshold for
the exercise of powers of investigation by a police officer.
However, the Respondent – ED has not demonstrated as to
how it could be prejudiced by calling the Appellant No. 1 to its
office in Kolkata where the ED has the Zonal Office.
vii. The Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance has issued
administrative instructions consistent with Section 51 of PMLA
that demarcate the specific territorial jurisdiction of various
Zonal Offices of the ED. The said instructions must be strictly
complied with by the ED in consonance with Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
viii. The Appellant No. 1 is a permanent resident of Kolkata and
being Member of Parliament has a residence in Delhi, which
however does not alter his permanent residence at Kolkata.
1 [2022] 6 SCR 382 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 119
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
ix. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. only deals with summons for production of
documents, whereas the summons issued to the Appellant No. 1
under PMLA are for personal appearance before the Respondent
at New Delhi is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
9. In addition to the above submissions, Learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi along with Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan appearing for the Appellant No. 2 broadly made
following submissions: -
i. The Appellant No. 2 has been summoned to appear in New
Delhi despite she being a home maker and a mother of two
children. The ED has created Zonal Offices and has an office
at Kolkata. Therefore, summoning the Appellant No. 2 in Delhi
is illegal and reeks mala fide.
ii. The Appellant No. 2 is neither an accused in the predicate
offence nor in the money laundering offence.
iii. Protection of woman provided under Section 160 of Cr.P.C
would be applicable to the PMLA also.
iv. Section 65 of PMLA makes provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable in so
far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of PMLA with
regard to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation,
investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under the
said Act. Therefore, in the absence of any specific procedure
for summoning of witnesses the Cr.P.C. will apply.
v. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that a person’s life and
liberty can be curtailed by State only in accordance with the
procedure established by law, and therefore the procedure for
Summons curtailing the right of the Appellant No. 2 to life and
liberty must be just and reasonable.
10. The Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.V. Raju also made elaborate
submissions on behalf of the Respondent – ED which may be
summarized as under: -
i. Section 91 Cr.P.C. neither encompasses any territorial
jurisdictional limit nor does it contain any proviso for women,
minors or elderly akin to Section 160 Cr.P.C. A police officer
has to resort to Section 91 Cr.P.C. to mandate the provision of
any document. Hence, Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be equated
with the powers under Section 50 of PMLA.
120 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
ii. Section 160 Cr.P.C. applies to a Police Officer who is making
an investigation under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., whereas the
process envisaged by Section 50 of PMLA is in the nature of
an inquiry and is not an Investigation in the strict sense of the
term as held in case of Vijay Madanlal (supra).
iii. ED has the power to summon any person whose attendance is
considered necessary whether to give evidence or to produce
any record as contemplated in Section 50 of the PMLA. A
statement made under Section 50 is admissible in evidence,
whereas the statement made under Section 161 is inadmissible
as provided under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
iv. There are stark inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and
Section 160 Cr.P.C., and therefore Section 160 Cr.P.C would
not apply to the proceedings under Section 50 of PMLA.
v. The procedure to exercise power under Section 50 PMLA is laid
down in the Rules called the Prevention of Money Laundering
(Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the Manner
of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating
Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records and the Period
of Retention) Rules, 2005.
vi. The Appellant No. 1 had attempted to mislead the Court by
suppressing the fact that he had residence in New Delhi also.
vii. The statement made under Section 50 of PMLA would not infringe
any fundamental right of the person contained in Article 20(3)
inasmuch as the person making the statement is not an accused
at the time when the statement under Section 50 is recorded.
viii. As regards territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted in the alternative
that as per the case of ED, the proceeds of crime to the tune of
Rs. 168 Crores were transferred through vouchers to Delhi and
Overseas, and therefore, there was adequate nexus with the
territory of Delhi with the alleged offence. Even a prosecution
complaint could have been filed in Delhi, which would be
consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Rana Ayyub
vs. Directorate of Enforcement.2
2 [2023] 3 SCR 892 : (2023) 4 SCC 357
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 121
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
ix. The Regional Offices created in the Directorate of Enforcement
are for administrative convenience and do not in any manner
limit the scope of enquiry of those concerned offices or officers,
if the offence of money laundering spreads over multiple States.
x. Section 5 r/w Section 4 (2) of Cr.P.C. itself contemplates that
nothing contained in the Code of 1973 would apply or affect
any special law in force regulating the manner of place of
investigation, inquiring into or dealing with such special offences.
xi. There was no illegality in summoning the Appellant No. 2 to
New Delhi, as according to the ED the proceeds of crime had
travel to New Delhi, which would be the area in which part of
the offence has been allegedly committed.
xii. Section 50 of PMLA is gender neutral as it does not make any
distinction between a man and a woman. The Court cannot
carve out an exception in favour of women in Section 50, when
there is none. Whenever the legislature felt the need to carve
out an exception in favour of women, it has done so as evident
from the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA. Therefore, there cannot
be any presumption that a casus omissus exists in Section 50.
11. For the sake of convenience, let us refer to some of the provisions
of Cr.P.C and PMLA, relevant for the purpose of deciding these
Appeals, as also relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties.
Relevant Provisions of Cr.P.C.:
4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and
other laws. —
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise
dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated,
inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to
the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for
the time being in force regulating the manner or place of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing
with such offences.
5. Saving. —Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the
absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any
122 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
special or local law for the time being in force, or any
special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special
form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the
time being in force.
91. Summons to produce document or other thing. —
(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police
station considers that the production of any document or
other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of
any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under
this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court
may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to
the person in whose possession or power such document
or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and
produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated
in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to
produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have
complied with the requisition if he causes such document
or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to
produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—
(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence
Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or
(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document
or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or
telegraph authority.
160. Police officer’s power to require attendance of
witnesses. —
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance
before himself of any person being within the limits of his
own or any adjoining station who, from the information
given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case; and such person
shall attend as so required:
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 123
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Provided that no male person [under the age of fifteen
years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or
a mentally or physically disabled person] shall be required
to attend at any place other than the place in which such
male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this
behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the
reasonable expenses of every person, attending under
sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.”
Relevant Provisions of PMLA:
50. Powers of authorities regarding summons,
production of documents and to give evidence, etc.—
(1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have
the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a
suit in respect of the following matters, namely: —
(a) discovery and inspection;
(b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any
officer of a banking company or a financial institution or a
company, and examining him on oath;
(c) compelling the production of records;
(d) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and
documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy
Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon
any person whose attendance he considers necessary
whether to give evidence or to produce any records during
the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act.
(3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend
in person or through authorised agents, as such officer may
direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject
respecting which they are examined or make statements,
and produce such documents as may be required.
124 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall
be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning
of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860).
(5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central
Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2)
may impound and retain in his custody for such period,
as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any
proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant
Director or a Deputy Director shall not—
(a) impound any records without recording his reasons
for so doing; or
(b) retain in his custody any such records for a period
exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous
approval of the Director.
51. Jurisdiction of Authorities. —
(1) The authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers
and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or,
assigned, as the case may be, to such authorities by or
under this Act or the rules framed thereunder in accordance
with such directions as the Central Government may issue
for the exercise of powers and performance of the functions
by all or any of the authorities.
(2) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-
section (1), the Central Government may have regard to
any one or more of the following criteria, namely: —
(a) territorial area;
(b) classes of persons;
(c) classes of cases; and
(d) any other criterion specified by the Central Government
in this behalf
63. Punishment for false information or failure to give
information, etc.—
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 125
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
(I) Any person wilfully and maliciously giving false
information and so causing an arrest or a search to be
made under this Act shall on conviction be liable for
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or
with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or both.
(2) If any person,—
(a) being legally bound to state the truth of any matter
relating to an offence under section 3, refuses to answer
any question put to him by an authority in the exercise of
its powers under this Act; or
(b) refuses to sign any statement made by him in the course
of any proceedings under this Act, which an authority may
legally require to sign; or
(c) to whom a summon is issued under section 50 either
to attend to give evidence or produce books of account
or other documents at a certain place and time, omits to
attend or produce books of account or documents at the
place or time,
he shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum which shall not
be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend
to ten thousand rupees for each such default or failure.
(3) No order under this section shall be passed by an
authority referred to in sub-section (2) unless the person on
whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed is given an
opportunity of being heard in the matter by such authority.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of
sub-section (2), a person who intentionally disobeys any
direction issued under section 50 shall also be liable to be
proceeded against under section 174 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860).
65. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply. —The
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure,
attachment, confiscation investigation, prosecution and all
other proceedings under this Act.
126 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
71. Act to have overriding effect. —The provisions
of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force.
12. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) read with
clause (a), clause (m), clause (n), clause (o), clause (pp) and clause
(w) of sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the PMLA, 2002, the Central
Government has also framed the Rules called “the Prevention of
Money-Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the
Manner of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating
Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records and the Period of
Retention) Rules, 2005”. As per Rule 11 of the said Rules, the
Summoning Officer, while exercising the powers under sub-section
(2) and (3) of Section 50 of the PMLA, has to issue Summons in
Form V, appended to the said Rules. Rule 11 of the said Rules
reads as under: -
“Rule 11: - Forms of records. - The Summoning Officer
shall, while exercising powers under sub-sections (2) and
(3) of Section 50 of the Act, issue summons in Form V
appended to these rules.”
13. At the outset, it may be noted that as well settled by now, the
provisions of PMLA are not only to investigate into the offence of
money laundering but more importantly to prevent money laundering
and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in
money laundering and the matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto. As held by the Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal
(supra), the PMLA is a self-contained Code and the dispensations
envisaged thereunder, must prevail in terms of Section 71 thereof,
which predicates that the provisions of the Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force, which includes provisions of
the Cr.P.C. The Section 65 of the Act predicates that the provisions
of the Cr.P.C. shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with
the provisions of the PMLA in respect of arrest, search and seizure,
attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other
proceedings under the Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 4(2)
of the Code states that all offences under any other law shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 127
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being
in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into,
trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Further, Section 5 of
the Code states that nothing contain in the Code shall, in absence of
specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for
the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred,
or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for
the time being in force. Thus, having regard to the conjoint reading
of Section 71 and Section 65 of the PMLA as also Section 4(2) and
Section 5 of the Code, there remains no shadow of doubt that the
provisions of PMLA will have the effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being
in force, including the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
14. Though, it was sought to be vehemently submitted by the learned
counsels for the appellants that the sweep of Section 160 of Cr.P.C.
would extend to summoning any person irrespective of whether that
person is an accused of that offence or a mere witness, the said
submission deserves to be discarded outrightly in view of the specific
observations made by the three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal,
to the effect that the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code (under
which Section 160 falls) do not apply in all respects to deal with
information derived relating to the commission of money laundering
offence much less investigation thereof. The precise observations
made by the Court in Vijay Madanlal, while considering the issue,
whether an ECIR could be equated with an FIR under the 1973
Code or not, are reproduced as under: -
“456…. Considering the scheme of the 2002 Act, though
the offence of money-laundering is otherwise regarded
as cognizable offence (cognizance whereof can be taken
only by the authorities referred to in Section 48 of this
Act and not by jurisdictional police) and punishable under
Section 4 of the 2002 Act, special complaint procedure is
prescribed by law. This procedure overrides the procedure
prescribed under 1973 Code to deal with other offences
(other than money-laundering offences) in the matter of
registration of offence and inquiry/investigation thereof.
This special procedure must prevail in terms of Section
71 of the 2002 Act and also keeping in mind Section 65
of the same Act. In other words, the offence of money-
128 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
laundering cannot be registered by the jurisdictional police
who is governed by the regime under Chapter XII of the
1973 Code. The provisions of Chapter XII of the 1973
Code do not apply in all respects to deal with information
derived relating to commission of money-laundering
offence much less investigation thereof. The dispensation
regarding prevention of money-laundering, attachment of
proceeds of crime and inquiry/investigation of offence of
money laundering upto filing of the complaint in respect of
offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is fully governed
by the provisions of the 2002 Act itself. To wit, regarding
survey, searches, seizures, issuing summons, recording
of statements of concerned persons and calling upon
production of documents, inquiry/investigation, arrest
of persons involved in the offence of money-laundering
including bail and attachment, confiscation and vesting of
property being proceeds of crime. Indeed, after arrest, the
manner of dealing with such offender involved in offence
of money-laundering would then be governed by the
provisions of the 1973 Code - as there are no inconsistent
provisions in the 2002 Act in regard to production of the
arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate within
twenty-four hours and also filing of the complaint before
the Special Court within the statutory period prescribed
in the 1973 Code for filing of police report, if not released
on bail before expiry thereof.”
15. In view of the above, it is abundantly clear that the dispensation
regarding Prevention of Money Laundering, Attachment of Proceeds
of Crime, and Inquiry/Investigation of offence of Money Laundering
including issuing summons, recording of statements, calling upon
persons for production of documents etc. upto filing of the Complaint
in respect of offence under Section 3 of PMLA 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, can not register
the offence of money laundering, nor can investigate into it, in view
of the special procedure prescribed under the PMLA with regard
to the registration of offence and inquiry/investigation thereof, and
that the special procedure must prevail in terms of Section 71 of
the PMLA.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 129
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
16. Apart from the fact that Section 50 is a gender neutral, as it does
not make any distinction between a man and a woman, there are
glaring inconsistencies between the provisions contained in Section
50 of PMLA and Section 160/161 of Cr.P.C. The Chapter XII of
Cr.P.C. pertains to the “Information to the Police and their Powers
to Investigate”. Section 160 which falls under Chapter XII empowers
the Police Officer making an investigation under the said Chapter to
require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining
station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas,
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
strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the Authorities
referred to in Section 48 of PMLA are not the Police Officers as
held in Vijay Madanlal. It has been specifically laid down in the
said decision that the statements recorded by the Authorities under
Section 50 of PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the
Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in
the course of inquiry are deemed to be the Judicial proceedings in
terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the
statements made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of
an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code could not be used for
any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section
162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between
Section 50 PMLA and Section 160/161 Cr.P.C, the provisions of
Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with
Section 65 thereof.
17. So far as the procedure to be followed by the Summoning Officer
while exercising the powers under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section
50 of the PMLA is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Rule 11 of
the said Rules 2005, requires the Summoning Officer to follow the
procedure as prescribed therein, i.e., to issue Summons in Form V
appended to the said Rules. The said prescribed Form V requires
Summoning Officer to mention not only the Name, Designation and
Address of the Summoning Officer but also the details of the persons
summoned as also the documents sought therein. The foot note of
Form V also mentions that the proceedings shall be deemed to be
judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section
228 of the IPC, and if the person summoned fails to give evidence as
130 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
mentioned in the Schedule, he would be liable to penal proceedings
under the Act. Thus, there being specific procedure prescribed under
the Statutory Rules of 2005 for summoning the person under sub-
sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the same would prevail
over any other procedure prescribed under the Code, particularly the
procedure contemplated in Section 160/161, as also the procedure
for production of documents contemplated in Section 91 of the Code,
in view of the overriding effect given to the PMLA over the other Acts
including the Cr.P.C. under Section 71 r/w Section 65 of the PMLA.
18. The submission made on behalf of Learned Counsels for the
Appellants that the conferment of power upon the Authority under
Section 50 of PMLA excluding the procedural safeguards would be
contrary to the standard of “procedure established by law” under
Article 21 of the Constitution, is also thoroughly misconceived. The
validity of Section 50 was sought to be challenged in Vijay Madanlal
on the ground of being violative of Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the
Constitution and the Court upholding the validity observed as under: -
“425. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the
Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director
or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person
whose attendance he considers necessary for giving
evidence or to produce any records during the course of
any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have
already highlighted the width of expression “proceeding” in
the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to
proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special
Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2)
empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any
person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would
come into play in respect of process of recording statement
pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of
collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding
under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound
to attend in person or through authorised agent and to
state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being
examined or is expected to make statement and produce
documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section
(3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act….
426 to 430…..
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 131
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered
that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50
in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime
which may have been attached and pending adjudication
before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action,
the designated officials have been empowered to summon
any person for collection of information and evidence to
be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not
necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee
as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials
under this Act, though couched as investigation in real
sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to
facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding
proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for
being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is
a different matter that the information and evidence so
collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission
of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the
person, who has been summoned for making disclosures
pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this
stage, there would be no formal document indicative of
likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of
offence of money laundering. If the statement made by him
reveals the offence of money -laundering or the existence
of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the
Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of
statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts
in connection with the property being proceeds of crime
is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as
such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation
against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even
to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised
officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other
material and evidence, the involvement of such person
(noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly
proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission.
In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the
person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded
after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences
132 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of Article 20 (3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may
come into play to urge that the same being in the nature
of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further,
it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding
against such a person including for consequences under
Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible
material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be
a matter of rule of evidence.”
19. The above ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal clinches the contentions
raised by the learned counsels for the appellants with regard to the
provisions of Section 50 being violative of Article 20(3) or Article 21
of the Constitution, and we need not further elaborate the same,
nor do we need to deal with the decisions of this Court on the said
issue which have already been dealt with in Vijay Madanlal. Suffice
it to say that Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue
summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary
for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of
the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned
is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to
state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined
or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may
be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50. At the stage of
issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article
20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not “testimonial compulsion”.
At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose
of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property
being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as
such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry
so conducted by the authorized officers. The consequences of Article
20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come
into play only if the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed
and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by the
ED official. In our opinion, the learned counsels for the appellants
have sought to reagitate the issues which have already been settled
in Vijay Madanlal.
20. Much reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsels for the
Appellants on the Annual Report of Ministry of Finance, GOI, which
according to them has stated about the Organizational Structure of
Directorate of Enforcement, demarcating the territorial jurisdiction of
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 133
Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
various Zonal Office of the ED. According to them, such instructions by
the Department of Revenue are for exercise of powers of investigation
by the ED as mandated by Section 51 PMLA and therefore must
be strictly complied with. The said submission also being fallacious
cannot be accepted. Apart from the fact that the document relied
upon is an Annual Report by the Ministry of Finance, showing the
Organizational Structure of the ED, the same could not be construed
as the directions issued by the Central Government for the purpose of
exercise of powers and performance of the functions by the Authorities
as contemplated in Section 51 of the said Act. As stated in the said
Report, the said Offices of the Directorate of Enforcement all over
India are set up to ensure that the Money Laundering offences are
investigated in an effective manner and they act as deterrence for
the potential offenders of the Money Launderers. Pertinently, the
Headquarters Investigation Unit (HIU) has not been restricted to any
territorial jurisdiction in the said Organizational Structure. The present
ECIR bearing ECIR/17/HIU/2020 is recorded at the HIU. Further, as
per the specific case of the ED in the complaint, filed against the
accused persons before the Special Court, PMLA, Rouse Avenue
Courts, New Delhi, Rs. 168 Crores were allegedly received by the
Inspector Ashok Kumar Mishra from the co-accused Anup Majee to
be delivered to his political bosses, and the said Rs. 168 Crores were
transferred through vouchers to Delhi and Overseas, which clearly
established adequate nexus of the offence and the offenders with
the territory of Delhi. We therefore do not find any illegality in the
summons issued by the respondent-ED summoning the Appellants
to its Office at Delhi, which also has the territorial jurisdiction, a part
of the offence having been allegedly committed by the accused
persons as alleged in the complaint. It is also not disputed that the
Appellant No. 1 being a Member of Parliament has also an official
residence at Delhi.
21. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the
challenge made by the Appellants to the Summons issued to the
Appellants under Section 50 of the PMLA. As contemplated in the
sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the persons summoned are bound
to attend in person or through authorized agents as the officer may
direct and are bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting
which they are examined or make statements, and to produce the
documents as may be required. As per sub-section (4) thereof
134 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) is deemed to be a
Judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and Section
228 of the IPC. As per sub-section (4) of Section 63, a person who
intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section 50 is liable
to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the IPC.
22. As transpiring from the Status Report submitted by the Deputy
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, pursuant to the Order
passed by this Court on 18.07.2024, the Appellant No. 2 – Rujira
Banerjee had not appeared and not produced the documents as
required vide the Summons dated 04.08.2021 and 18.08.2021. The
ED therefore had filed the Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against her under
Section 63 PMLA r/w Section 174 IPC. It is also pertinent to note that
though the Appellant No. 2 by filing the Crl. M.C. No. 2442 of 2021
before the High Court had challenged the Order dated 18.09.2021
passed by the said Court taking cognizance of the said Complaint
and the Order dated 30.09.2021 summoning her before the Court,
she has not even bothered to produce the said Orders before this
Court in the instant Appeals. Since the said Complaint is pending
before the concerned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, we do not
express any opinion on the merits of the said Complaint. Suffice it
to say that we do not find any illegality in the said orders passed by
the concerned court and that the said complaint shall be proceeded
further by the said Court in accordance with law.
23. For the reasons stated above, both the Appeals being devoid of
merits are dismissed.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Quashing of summons"Sign in to search