Illegal Coal Mining Case: No relief for Abhishek, wife Rujira Banerjee as SC upholds ED summons

Both Abhishek and Rujira challenged the ED summons before the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed their pleas. The couple then moved the top court.

Upholding the validity of the summons issued by the ED under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said the provisions of the PMLA would prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in relation to such summoning.

“…having regard to the conjoint reading of section 71 (which says PMLA will have overriding effect) and section 65 of the PMLA as also section 4(2) and section 5 of the CRPC, 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 CrPC,” the Bench said in its order.

It said that “as contemplated in the sub-section (3) of section 50 of the PMLA, all the persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorised agents as the officer may direct”.

“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 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant,” the Bench added and noted that Rujira had not appeared and not produced the documents as required vide the summons dated August 4, 2021, and August 18, 2021, by the ED,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court also rejected the contention that statements recorded by authorities under section 50 of PMLA are hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution.
“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 Bench said.

Article 20(3) says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 25 of the Evidence Act says that “no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”.

The top court said, “It has been specifically laid down… 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… could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code.”

Abhishek and his wife had questioned the ED’s decision to summon them to their Delhi office even though the central agency had a regional office in Kolkata.

On being summoned to Delhi, the Supreme Court said the establishment of regional offices was “to ensure that the money laundering offences are investigated in an effective manner and they act as deterrence for the potential offenders… Pertinently, the Headquarters Investigation Unit (HIU) has not been restricted to any territorial jurisdiction in the said organizational structure”.

“We, therefore, do not find any illegality in summoning the appellants (Abhishek and Rujira) to its Delhi office, which also has the territorial jurisdiction… It is also not disputed that the Appellant No.1 (Abhishek Banerjee) being a Member of Parliament has also an official residence at Delhi,” the court said.

The ED’s case stems from CBI’s case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act on November 27, 2020, related to alleged illegal excavation and theft of coal taking place in the leasehold areas of ECL.

The ED registered the case 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 crore.

With PTI Inputs