Supreme Court Dismisses Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee’s Appeals Against ED Summons Under PMLA

Supreme Court Dismisses Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee’s Appeals Against ED Summons Under PMLA

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals filed by Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued to them by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appellants had sought relief from the ED's summons to appear in New Delhi, arguing for a venue closer to their hometown, Kolkata, and questioned the legal grounds for their summons under the PMLA.

Background of the Case

The case originated with an FIR registered by the CBI regarding illegal coal mining activities in the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). The investigation revealed significant instances of money laundering involving illegal coal extraction and transportation, amounting to approximately Rs. 1300 crore. This led to the ED's involvement, which resulted in the issuance of summons to both Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, under Section 50 of the PMLA, requiring them to appear in New Delhi with relevant documents.

Legal Proceedings

The appellants sought the **quashing of the summons** in the Delhi High Court, arguing that they should be examined in Kolkata, where the alleged crime occurred and where the ED also had offices. Rujira Banerjee also sought to quash the complaint filed by the ED for her non-compliance with the summons, which led to proceedings under **Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)** for intentionally disobeying lawful instructions. The High Court rejected their petitions, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants, represented by **Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal** and **Abhishek Manu Singhvi**, presented the following key arguments:

- Territorial jurisdiction: They contended that the ED had no grounds to summon them to New Delhi when the alleged offence and investigation were centered in West Bengal.

- Summons procedure: They argued that the procedure for issuing summons under Section 50 of the PMLA lacked clarity and safeguards, especially for women and non-accused persons.

- Applicability of CrPC provisions: They claimed that provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), such as Section 160, which protects women from being summoned outside their local jurisdiction, should apply to proceedings under the PMLA.

ED’s Response

The ED, represented by S.V. Raju, refuted these arguments, asserting that:

- The PMLA’s provisions for summoning individuals are independent of the CrPC, and Section 50 gives the ED the power to summon any person for inquiry.

- The alleged money laundering involved transactions that extended beyond West Bengal, with funds being routed to Delhi and overseas. This provided sufficient grounds to summon the appellants to New Delhi.

- The PMLA does not provide special exemptions for women in terms of the location of summons, as the act's provisions are gender-neutral.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that the PMLA is a self-contained code with its procedures for investigating money laundering offences. The Court highlighted that:

- Section 50 of the PMLA grants the ED the authority to summon individuals for inquiry, and this power is not limited by territorial jurisdiction. The Delhi-based transactions related to the alleged offence justified the summons to New Delhi.

- The CrPC’s protections for women, including Section 160, do not apply in the context of the PMLA’s investigation process. The Court also noted that the PMLA’s provisions override those of the CrPC, given the special nature of money laundering investigations.

- The appellants’ claims regarding procedural safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution were dismissed. The Court reiterated its stance from previous rulings that statements made under Section 50 of the PMLA do not violate constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the ED’s powers under the PMLA to summon individuals for inquiries, even if it requires them to travel to different jurisdictions. The Court dismissed both appeals, noting that the provisions of the PMLA are designed to ensure effective investigation and prosecution of money laundering offences, regardless of territorial or personal considerations.