 |
|
The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, ruling that the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, supersede the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in relation to summoning individuals. This decision has significant implications for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its ability to investigate money laundering cases. The petitioners, Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee, had challenged summons issued by the ED, arguing that they could only be summoned in Kolkata, their place of residence, and not in New Delhi, the location of the alleged coal scam. The court, however, rejected these arguments, highlighting the overriding effect of the PMLA over other laws.
The court's reasoning rests on a meticulous analysis of the PMLA's provisions, particularly Section 71, which grants the PMLA precedence over any conflicting law. This principle is further strengthened by Section 65 of the PMLA, which states that the provisions of the CrPC apply only insofar as they do not contradict the PMLA. The court also pointed to the inconsistencies between the summoning provisions of the PMLA (Section 50) and the CrPC (Section 160). For instance, Section 50 of the PMLA is gender-neutral, while Section 160 of the CrPC is not. Moreover, Section 160 of the CrPC deals with 'investigation,' while Section 50 of the PMLA focuses on 'inquiry.' The court emphasized that these inconsistencies necessitate the precedence of the PMLA, as per Section 71 read with Section 65.
Furthermore, the court recognized the specific procedures laid out in the PMLA Rules, 2005, regarding summoning individuals. These procedures supersede any alternative methods outlined in the CrPC, including those related to document production. The court also dismissed the petitioners' arguments about the procedure violating Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution, citing the earlier judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the PMLA. Finally, the court highlighted the serious consequences of ignoring summons issued under the PMLA. Section 50(3) of the PMLA mandates the attendance of summoned individuals, either in person or through authorized agents, and requires them to provide truthful statements and documents. Section 50(4) explicitly classifies these proceedings as judicial proceedings, making any intentional disobedience of the summons liable to prosecution under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court's judgment has far-reaching consequences for the ED and its investigations into financial crimes. By affirming the precedence of the PMLA over the CrPC in summoning, the court has empowered the ED to pursue its investigations with greater flexibility. This decision also clarifies the legal framework for summoning individuals under the PMLA, emphasizing the importance of compliance and the potential legal ramifications of non-compliance. The case highlights the growing importance of the PMLA in the Indian legal system and its role in combating financial crimes.
Source: PMLA Prevails Over CrPC Regarding Procedure For Summoning Persons : Supreme Court