West Bengal Coal Scam Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, His Wife Seeking Quashing Of Summons

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the plea by All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife seeking quashing of summons issued to them by Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar also dismissed the plea by Banerjee's wife Rujira Banerjee assailing the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate against her in the money laundering case and the Trial Court order taking cognizance of the said complaint. The plea also assailed the subsequent issuance of summons against her for physical appearance.The CBI had registered an FIR in respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals. Pursuant to this, ED has registered an ECIR in the Head Investigative Unit located in New Delhi.About Plea by Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira BanerjeeThe duo, permanent residents of Kolkata, were directed to appear before ED for interrogation in Delhi. They had moved the High Court in September last year, claiming that that the agency cannot assume investigative powers in respect of allegations of money laundering arising in the scheduled offence as the same could only have been investigated into by the concerned zonal office at Kolkata.The petition stated that both Banerjee and his wife have not been named neither in the CBI FIR nor in the complaint registered by the ED in New Delhi under sec. 45 of PMLA.The plea therefore stated that the agency "cannot assume investigative powers in respect of allegations of money laundering arising in the scheduled offence as the same could only have been investigated into by the concerned zonal office at Kolkata."In view of this, the plea sought to quash summons issued by the ED dated 10th September 2021 under sec. 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and further directing ED to not summon them in New Delhi and to carry out any further examination qua the two in Kolkata, West Bengal.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioners argued that only the National Investigating Agency had 'All India jurisdiction'. He had pointed out that the police authorities are bound to their own jurisdictions under Section 160 (Police officer' s power to require attendance of witnesses) of CrPC. Similarly, it was submitted, ED has zonal and regional jurisdiction as described under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA'). In this regard, he referred to Section 65 of PMLA which states that provisions of CrPC are to apply.ED on the other hand has argued that the case is being probed by its Headquarter Investigative Unit which has All India jurisdiction.ASG S V Raju representing the agency argued that the ED has followed the prescribe procedure for summoning the petitioners for interrogation. He submitted that ED officials are not police officers and hence, Section 160 of CrPC is not applicable in the case. He also submitted that Banerjee is a Member of Parliament and has a residence in Delhi. Hence also, the case is liable to be dismissed.The Court analyzed the respective scheme of the PMLA and the CrPC. It said that the CrPC clearly points towards the territorial limitations imposed on police officers in terms of the exercise of their jurisdiction and that such jurisdiction appears to be limited to their respective local areas (except in certain situations) falling under their respective police stations.The Court added that on the other hand, a perusal of the PMLA would provide that the authorities under Section 48 of the Act, in the exercise of their powers under the PMLA are not territorially restricted in the manner envisaged under the CrPC. "From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the legislature has created a separate machinery in order to deal with a specific offence and, despite being aware of the territorial limitations in the CrPC, the legislature chose not to incorporate those limitations in the PMLA. Admittedly, certain sections of the PMLA like Section 6, Section 16 and Section 44 refer to territorial jurisdiction in specific circumstances, no other provision of the PMLA, especially the provisions concerning the investigative powers of the authorities under the Act provide for any such territorial limitation," the Court said. It added "Therefore, it is clear that the authorities under the PMLA are not restricted as per the territorial caskets envisaged under the CrPC and would naturally exercise jurisdiction depending upon the exigencies of special investigation. This is so in view of the nature of the offence being dealt with by "the authorities" under the PMLA which may not be localized like IPC offences."Therefore, the Court opined that while CrPC provide for a procedure to deal with offences under the IPC and imposes territorial limitations on police officer, the PMLA while establishing a national investigative agency, does not incorporate any such territorial...

West Bengal Coal Scam Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea By TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, His Wife Seeking Quashing Of Summons

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags