Site icon Legal Vidhiya

ABHISHEK BANERJEE VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love
CITATION2024 SSC Online SC 2454
DATE OF JUDGMENT   9th September 2024
COURTSupreme court of India 
APPELLANTAbhishek Banerjee 
RESPONDENTDirectorate of Enforcement 
BENCHJustice Bela M. Trivedi , Justice Satish Chandra Sharma 

INTRODUCTION 

The case of Abhishek Banerjee vs  Directorate of Enforcement is related to a money laundering investigation into an alleged illegal coal mining scam in West Bengal. Abhishek Banerjee and his wife, Rujira Banerjee, are the appellants before the Apex Court.

In 2020, an FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for illegal mining of coal and theft of the leasehold area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). In July 2021, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons to Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi. Both appellants did not appear on the directed date. Multiple times, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued summons for both appellants to appear in the High Court of New Delhi. Appellant 2(Rujira Banerjee)replied to the summons, request the respondent to examined her in Kolkata, as their office is located there and the alleged cause of action happened in West Bengal.

Again, the respondent issued a summons against appellant 1(Abhishek Banerjee)for his appearance in New Delhi, which was challenged by appellant 1 by filing a writ petition before the High Court for the violation of his fundamental rights. The respondent (ED) filed a complaint against appellant 2( Rujira Banerjee) in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House, New Delhi , alleging the commission of an offense for non-compliance with the summons. The learned CMM passed an order directing the appellant to be personally present before the court. Rujira challenged the respondent complaint against her and the order made by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous  petition in the High Court. Both petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the high court via impugned order. The couple appealed before the Supreme Court, claiming that Calcutta was their ordinary place of residence and requesting to appear in Kolkata instead of having to go to New Delhi.

FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. An FIR was registered by CBI Kolkata on 27.11.2020 for offence under section 120B,409 of IPC and section 13 of prevention of corruption act related to illegal coal excavation in leasehold area and theft by Anup Majee and eastern coalfield limited( ECL) employees.
  2. During the course of investigation of FIR a large number of vehicles and equipment’s are seized and ECIR was registered by the ED on 28.11.2020 indicating money laundering of rupees 1300 crores.
  3. Accused Vikas Mishra was arrested on 16.03.2021 and inspector Ashok Mishra on 03.04.2021 the involvement in coal Mafia and laundering several hundred crores rupees.
  4. Inspector Ashok Kumar Mishra allegedly received Rs.168 crores from Anup Majee over 109 days for delivery to political associates and transferred through vouchers to Delhi and overseas.
  5. The respondent ( Directorate of enforcement) issued multiple summons to Abhishek Banerjee(appellant 1)and Rujira Banerjee(appellant 2)seeking their personal appearance in Delhi High court and sought their documents in between July and September 2021.
  6. Both the appellants failed to appear in directed date and they requested extensions to comply with the summons.
  7. Appellant 1 filed a writ petition against the said summon before the High court.
  8. On 13.09 2021, ED filed a complaint against Rujira Banerjee for non compliance with the summons leading to a cognizance order by the Chief metropolitan magistrate on 18.09.2021. Appellant 2 appeared virtually on 30.09.2021 and was exempted from personal appearance for that day but was ordered to appear on 12.10.2021.
  9. Appellant 2 filed Crl.Mc before the High court challenging the order of CMM and complaint filed by the respondent.
  10. Both the appellants challenged the summons and complaints in the High court through petitions are dismissed.

ISSUES RAISED 

  1. Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA) does not gives any clear procedural guidance for summoning individuals, it really indicates the substantive power of ED to summon.
  2. Due to the lack of procedural guidance rises concern about fairness and reasonableness procedure under article 21 of the constitution.
  3.  And issue raised by the appellants challenging ED’s  Decision to summon them to New Delhi instead of their permanent residence Kolkata. 
  4. Under section 91 of Cr.P.C only deals to summons for production of document but the summon issued for appellants under PMLA for personal appearance in New Delhi which rises concern about proper legal procedure.

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

  1. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that section 50 of PMLA does not provide any procedure for summoning individual, it only indicate the substantive power and the power without procedure could be fair just and reasonable under article 21 of the constitution.
  2. It is also argued that summoning in appellant no.2 to Delhi is unlawful because she is a homemaker and mother and she was not an accused for money laundering offences.
  3. Provided that under section 160 of Cr.P.C for protection of women should apply to PMLA and section 65 of PMLA will applicable with regard to arrest ,search , seizure and other proceeding but allows Cr.P.C provisions where they are consistent including summoning witness.
  4. Article 21 of the constitution provides a person life and liberty can only be curtailed by the state in accordance with the procedure established by law and must follow just and reasonable procedures.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

  1. It was argued on behalf of ED that section 91 of Cr.P.C does not have any limits on territorial jurisdiction or any specific provision for women ,minor or the elderly unlike section 160, it allows police officer to request documents but it power cannot be compared to section 50 of PMLA. 
  2. The appellant no.1 is the member of parliament and he resides in New Delhi but he allegedly mislead the court about the residence in New Delhi.
  3.  It was are you that this statement made under section 50 PMLA does not violates article 20(3) rights since the individual is not considered and accused when the statement is recorded.
  4.  Again and argument put forth  is that the case involves Rs.168 crores in proceeds of crime transfer to Delhi and overseas ,so there is a sufficient  connection to Delhi . Therefore a prosecution complaint could have been file there.

JUDGEMENT

The supreme court status that the provision of PMLA mainly focus on preventing money laundering and investigating related o offences, with that the act is also allows for the confiscation of property that are connected to money laundering cases.  The court also stated that section 50 of PMLA  is gender neutral and the act prevails over other procedure under CRPC section 160 / 161 and section 91. The court pointed out that at the summon stage a person cannot invoke article 20 (3) of the constitution because issuing summon does not involve “testimonial compulsion”. At the stage of recording a person statement for the purpose of enquiry about property is not considered a prosecution investigation. Summons can we issued to witness during this enquiry by authorised officer and the protection under article 20 (3) or section 25 of evidence act will apply only if the  persons involvement is found after a formal arrest by ED.

 The court stated that ED has offices across India to investigate money laundering cases effectively and in this case there are the strong connection between the crime and the offenders in Delhi. Therefore the supreme court reject the appeals of Abhishek Banerjee challenging ED summon issued under section 50 of PMLA and the court said that all the people summoned  are required to appear in person or any authorised agent and the must tell the truth.

ANALYSIS

Abhishek Banerjee vs the Director of Enforcement is a case that revolves around ED summons issued to Abhishek Banerjee and his wife, Rujira Banerjee, in connection with an illegal coal mining scam. The ED has issued multiple summons for their personal appearance in the High Court of New Delhi. They challenged the summons, arguing that they should be questioned in Kolkata, their ordinary place of residence. Initially, the High Court of Delhi dismissed their petitions, after which the duo appealed to the Supreme Court. The case raises important questions about the applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the jurisdiction of the court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals Abhishek Banerjee and held that the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is gender-neutral. The Act overrides the procedure under the Cr.P.C. in certain special statutes, and the ED has offices across India to investigate money laundering cases. There is no restriction on the jurisdiction of courts in such cases. The implications of the court’s decision affect any future cases where individuals, including women, are summoned under similar statutes, highlighting the significance of compliance with summons from enforcement agencies and the broad powers they wield in the investigation of financial crimes.

CONCLUSION

This case involves Abhishek Banerjee and his wife, Rujira Banerjee, appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision by the Delhi High Court. The High Court dismissed their petition challenging the summons issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. They sought to quash the summons based on various issues related to jurisdiction, the legality of the summons, and procedural guidance under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

The Supreme Court upheld the ED’s authority to issue summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act( PMLA), stating that the provisions of this Act prevail over those of the Cr.P.C. The Court also rejected the claim that the summons violated the appellants’ rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, thereby strengthening the power of the ED in matters of money laundering investigations.

REFERENCES

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191493201/
  2. SCC Online 

This Article is written by Tania Islam student of Jogesh Chandra chaudhuri law college, Kolkata ; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version