Court dismisses writ petition challenging further investigation by ED, affirms no prior court permission required under Prevention of Money Laundering Act
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, seeking to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from conducting further investigations in a money laundering case. The case, registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), involved allegations against Kejriwal and his family members.
The petitioner argued that the ED initiated further investigations without obtaining prior permission from the Special Court, where the case was pending. This, Kejriwal claimed, was beyond the jurisdiction of the investigating agency.
However, Justice Krishna Rao of the Calcutta High Court, in a detailed judgment, held that the ED is empowered to conduct further investigations under Section 44(1) of the PMLA. The court emphasized that the PMLA is a special statute with overriding provisions, allowing the ED to issue notices and collect further evidence without the need for prior court permission, especially when charges have not been framed and the trial has not commenced.
The judgment clarified that Section 44 of the PMLA begins with a non-obstante clause, explicitly permitting further investigations to bring additional evidence against accused persons. The court noted that this provision ensures that no offender escapes prosecution due to procedural constraints.
The court further distinguished between "further investigation" and "re-investigation," explaining that the former is a continuation of the initial investigation and is statutorily permissible, while the latter requires court permission.
The decision referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 44 of the PMLA, affirming the ED's authority to conduct further investigations without court intervention.
The ruling is expected to have significant implications for ongoing and future cases under the PMLA, reinforcing the agency's powers to pursue comprehensive investigations into money laundering offenses.
Bottom Line :
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Further investigation by Enforcement Directorate after filing of prosecution complaint - In view of Section 44(1) and Explanation (ii) of PMLA, ED can conduct further investigation and issue notice under Section 50 to collect further evidence - Prior leave of Special Court is not necessary, particularly when charges have not yet been framed and trial has not commenced - Writ seeking restraint on further investigation dismissed.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 44(1), 50, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 193.
Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Union of India, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989667
