ED Can Confront Accused Without Advance Notice
The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the accused has no right to oppose an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The court stated that not providing an advanced copy of the application to the accused does not violate natural justice principles.
ED’s Power Under Section 50 of PMLA
Section 50 of the PMLA allows ED officers to summon individuals and request information related to money laundering cases. The law requires those summoned to provide truthful and accurate details.
In this case, the ED sought permission from the Special PMLA Court in Lucknow to interrogate an accused person in jail. The accused was under investigation in the Shine City Scam case. The ED wanted to confront him with new evidence collected during the ongoing investigation. The Special PMLA Court granted permission, leading the accused to challenge the decision in the High Court.
Accused’s Argument Against ED’s Move
The accused, represented by Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty, argued that further interrogation should not happen after the chargesheet had been filed. He also contended that he should have received an advance copy of the ED’s application to seek legal advice. The Trial Court had already rejected a recall application against the order.
ED’s Justification for Further Investigation
Advocate Kuldeep Srivastava, representing the ED, countered that crucial evidence had surfaced, requiring the accused’s statement. The ED insisted that confronting him with this evidence was essential for the investigation.
Court’s Verdict: No Violation of Natural Justice
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed that the case involved a massive fraud running into thousands of crores. The court ruled that since the accused had an opportunity to respond to the evidence, withholding an advance copy of the ED’s application did not violate natural justice.
However, the court suggested that, as an “abundant precaution,” serving a copy to the accused could have been considered. Despite this, the accused had no legal right to oppose the ED’s request.
Safeguards for Recording the Statement
To balance fairness, the court ordered that the accused’s statement be recorded in the Superintendent’s or Jailer’s room at Lucknow Jail. His legal counsel must be present during the process to provide assistance.
Key Takeaways
The accused cannot oppose an ED application under PMLA Section 50.
Not providing an advance copy of the application does not violate natural justice.
ED can interrogate the accused in jail if new evidence emerges.
The accused’s legal counsel must be present during questioning.
This ruling reinforces the ED’s authority to continue investigations even after filing a chargesheet. It ensures that new evidence can be confronted with the accused for a comprehensive probe.
