Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two criminal appeals filed by Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee against the common order of the Delhi High Court dated 11.03.2022. The appellants had challenged summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), requiring them to appear in New Delhi for inquiry in connection with an ECIR registered on the basis of a CBI FIR relating to illegal coal mining and money laundering. The appellants, residents of Kolkata, argued that the ED had a zonal office in Kolkata and that summoning them to Delhi was illegal, mala fide, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. They also contended that Section 160 CrPC, which protects women and others from being summoned to a police station beyond their residence, should apply to PMLA proceedings via Section 65 PMLA. The ED argued that Section 50 PMLA is a standalone provision with no territorial restrictions, and that the proceeds of crime were allegedly transferred to Delhi, providing territorial nexus. The Supreme Court held that Section 50 PMLA confers power on the ED to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary, and there is no territorial limitation in the provision. The Court further held that Section 160 CrPC does not apply to PMLA proceedings because Section 50 PMLA is inconsistent with it, and Section 65 PMLA only applies CrPC provisions that are consistent with PMLA. The Court also rejected the Article 21 argument, stating that Section 50 PMLA provides a fair procedure and the absence of territorial restrictions does not make it arbitrary. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned orders of the High Court were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 50 - Summons - Territorial Jurisdiction - The ED issued summons under Section 50 PMLA to appellants residing in Kolkata, requiring appearance in New Delhi. The appellants challenged the summons on the ground that the ED had a zonal office in Kolkata and that summoning them to Delhi was illegal and violative of Article 21. The Supreme Court held that Section 50 PMLA is a standalone provision conferring power on the ED to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary, and there is no territorial restriction in the provision. The Court further held that the ED's power to summon is not limited by the person's place of residence or domicile, and the existence of a zonal office in Kolkata does not oblige the ED to examine the person there. The Court also noted that the proceeds of crime were allegedly transferred to Delhi, providing territorial nexus. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 160 - Applicability to PMLA - The appellants argued that Section 160 CrPC, which protects women and others from being summoned to a police station beyond their residence, should apply to PMLA proceedings via Section 65 PMLA. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 160 CrPC applies only to police officers investigating under Chapter XII CrPC, whereas Section 50 PMLA is an inquiry provision, not investigation. The Court found that Section 50 PMLA is inconsistent with Section 160 CrPC, and therefore Section 160 CrPC does not apply to PMLA proceedings by virtue of Section 65 PMLA. (Paras 10-15) C) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Procedure Established by Law - The appellants contended that the summons under Section 50 PMLA without territorial guidelines violated Article 21. The Supreme Court held that Section 50 PMLA itself provides a fair procedure, and the absence of territorial restrictions does not make it arbitrary or violative of Article 21. The Court emphasized that the ED's power to summon is necessary for effective investigation of money laundering, which often has cross-jurisdictional dimensions. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to a person residing in Kolkata, requiring appearance in New Delhi, is valid and not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; and whether the provisions of Section 160 CrPC (which restrict summoning of women and others to their residence) apply to proceedings under Section 50 PMLA.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the impugned order of the Delhi High Court. The Court held that the summons under Section 50 PMLA were valid and not violative of Article 21, and that Section 160 CrPC does not apply to PMLA proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 50 PMLA is a standalone provision for summoning persons for inquiry
- not governed by Sections 160 or 91 CrPC
- ED's power to summon is not territorially limited to the person's domicile
- Section 160 CrPC does not apply to PMLA proceedings
- Section 65 PMLA only applies CrPC provisions consistent with PMLA
- Article 21 does not require territorial restriction on summons under PMLA
