The Calcutta High Court has held that the Enforcement Directorate can conduct further investigation in a money laundering case even after filing a prosecution complaint, ruling that prior permission of the trial court is not required where the trial has not yet commenced.

Justice Krishna Rao dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, who had challenged notices issued by the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to him and his wife during the pendency of the proceedings before the Special Court.

The Court was dealing with a petition seeking a direction restraining the ED from undertaking any further investigation.

The underlying case originated from a CBI case registered in 2013 against Kejriwal, his wife and son for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the CBI filed its chargesheet, the ED registered the ECIR in 2020 treating the CBI case as the scheduled offence.

The ED subsequently filed its prosecution complaint before the Special Court. While the proceedings were pending, the agency issued a Section 50 notice to Kejriwal's wife on August 27, 2026 and another notice to Kejriwal on September 2, 2026, directing them to appear and produce evidence and documents.

Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing for Kejriwal, argued that the notices amounted to revival of the investigation after the prosecution complaint had already been filed. He contended that since the matter was pending before the Special Court, the ED ought to have obtained leave or permission from the trial court before conducting further investigation.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and its order in Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India, to contend that further investigation during trial requires permission of the concerned court.

Appearing for the ED, Advocate Arijit Chakraborty argued that Section 44 of the PMLA does not require the agency to obtain prior permission for further investigation. He also relied on Section 71 of the PMLA, which gives the statute overriding effect, and cited the Calcutta High Court's earlier decision in Enforcement Directorate v. Debabrata Halder, which held that an investigating agency is not required to seek permission for further investigation.

The Court examined the proviso to Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides that further investigation during trial may be conducted with the permission of the court trying the case.

Justice Rao, however, noted that in the present case, charges had not yet been framed.

"It is settled proposition of law that trial commences only after framing of charges and not prior thereto," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the petitioner's application for discharge had been rejected by the Special Court on August 29, 2026, with the matter thereafter fixed for consideration of charge.

The Court then examined Section 44(1) of the PMLA, particularly Explanation (ii), which provides that a complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation conducted to bring further evidence, whether oral or documentary, against an accused involved in the offence for which a complaint has already been filed.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court noted that further investigation is a statutory and continuing power of the authorised agency.

The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's order in Bhupesh Kumar Baghel, which had recognised that the ED can bring further evidence on record during trial with prior permission of the court.

The Court distinguished the petitioner's reliance on Pramod Kumar, noting that the Supreme Court in that case had considered Section 173(8) of the CrPC and not the specific scheme under Section 44 of the PMLA.

It also took note of the earlier Calcutta High Court decision in Debabrata Halder, observing that the Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge to that judgment.

On the facts of the present case, the Court concluded that the ED's issuance of notices to the petitioner and his wife could not be interfered with.

"Considering the above, this Court did not find any reasons to interference with the further investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate by issuing notice to the petitioner," the Court held.

Case No: W.P.A. No. 26283 of 2026

Case: Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal Vs Union of India and Others