The division judge bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance Vs Menka Gambhir and Another held that the process envisaged by Section 50 of the of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’). is in nature of inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not “investigation” in the strict sense of the term for initiating a prosecution and the authorities under the PMLA are not police officers as such.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered by the CBI against the writ petitioner under Sections 120B and 409 of the IPC for the alleged illegal excavation, theft, and transportation of coal and ECL Coalfields in West Bengal. Thereafter, the appellant had registered the ECIR for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The writ petitioner was issued the summons under Section 50 (2) and (3) of PMLA for an appearance in his office. Subsequently, another summon of similar nature was issued. These summons were the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
Contentions:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned single judge had no jurisdiction to pass on the order as it involves police inaction. It was also submitted that against the impugned summons the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal and that in compliance with the impugned order the writ petitioner has appeared before the E.D, therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition which has now become infructuous. Furthermore, the petitioner made a false representation that she is a citizen of India however, she is a citizen of Thailand.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that it is not a situation of police inaction, so the learned Single Judge has jurisdiction, and there is a typographical error in the writ petition about mentioning the writ petitioner being an Indian citizen, but there is no suppression.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India supported the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
Court’s Observation:
The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgement titled Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others and held that the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in nature of inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not an “investigation” in the strict sense of the term for initiating a prosecution and the authorities under the PMLA are not police officers as such.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court held that nothing survives in the present writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge which has become infructuous and permits the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge for formal disposal of the petition.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance Vs Menka Gambhir and Another
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Case No: MAT 1762 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Mr. Piyush Kumar Ray, Mr. Kush Agarwal.
Advocate for Union of India: Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
