 "Abhishek Banerjee, Abhishek")
The bench also rejected the submission of Abhishek and Rujira that they cannot be called to New Delhi. | File Photo: PTI
In a setback to TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed their pleas challenging the summons and proceedings initiated against them by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case related to alleged illegal excavation and theft of coal in areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL).
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the validity of the summons issued by the ED dated September 10, 2021, to the couple under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) asking them to appear in New Delhi office in connection with the case.
“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,” the bench ordered.
It said that as contemplated in the sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorised 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.
Both Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee had challenged the summons before the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed their pleas. Aggrieved by the high court order, they had moved the top court.
The Trinamool Congress (TMC) had alleged that the ED action against its general secretary Abhishek Banerjee was due to the Centre’s vendetta politics.
Rujira Banerjee in a separate plea has challenged the dismissal of her petition by the high court against the proceedings initiated by the ED before the Patiala House Court at New Delhi.
The bench said under the provisions of PMLA, a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section 50 is liable to be proceeded against under the IPC.
It noted that Rujira had not appeared and not produced the documents as required vide the summonsed dated August 4, 2021, and August 18, 2021, by the ED and thereafter the probe agency has filed the complaint in the Patiala House Court at New Delhi.
The top court said that though Rujira has challenged the proceedings before the Patiala House Court and subsequent orders passed by the lower court before the high court, “she has not even bothered to produce the said orders before this court in the instant appeals”.
It said, “Since the said complaint is pending before the concerned (Patiala House) court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, we do not express any opinion on the merits of the said complaint.
Dealing with the arguments, the bench said the dispensation regarding prevention of money laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, and inquiry/investigation of the offence of money laundering including issuing summons, recording of statements, calling upon persons for production of documents etc. up to the 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 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 Section 71 of the PMLA,” it said.
Holding that Section 50 of PMLA, which authorises the ED to issue summons is “gender neutral”, the bench said it does not make any distinction between a man and a woman.
The bench also rejected the submission of Abhishek and Rujira that they cannot be called to New Delhi and can be examined in Kolkata, where ED has a functional office and the alleged cause of action had arisen in West Bengal.
“We 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 (Abhishek Banrjee) being a member of parliament has also an official residence at Delhi,” the bench said.
It added that the Headquarters Investigation Unit (HIU) of the ED has not been restricted to any territorial jurisdiction in the said organisational structure and the present ECIR (ED’s equivalent of FIR) is registered in said HIU.
The ED’s case stems from CBI’s case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) on November 27, 2020, related to alleged illegal excavation and theft of coal taking place in the leasehold areas of ECL by one Anup Majee alias Lala with the active connivance of certain employees of the company.
The ED registered the ECIR on November 28, 2020, at HIU, New Delhi and, during the investigation of the case, a large number of vehicles and equipment 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.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
First Published: Sep 09 2024 | 9:19 PM IST
