If you indiscriminately use ED, PMLA will lose its value: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that using Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings indiscriminately will affect the "value" of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) [Usha Martin Limited v. Union of India]..The observation was made by a Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli while hearing an appeal filed by steel company Usha Martin Limited against an order of a single-judge Jharkhand High Court in a case relating to export of Iron Ore Fines (IOF)."If you indiscriminately start using ED proceedings, then the (PMLA) Act loses its value," said Justice Bopanna.Usha Martin Ltd. had moved the Jharkhand High Court against the summons issued to them in connection with the criminal proceedings initiated by District Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI for offences under the PMLA. The High Court had dismissed the plea on November 3, 2021 leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and granted protection from coercive action to the appellants while staying the summoning order for a period of four weeks..The plea before the Supreme Court pointed out that the entire proceedings was based on the premise that the petitioner company indulged in export of IOF thereby violating the conditions of lease agreement with the Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner company placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Krishnanand Tripathi v. State of Jharkhand in which the High Court "categorically upheld the rights of mining lease holders for disposal/ sale of minerals."The Division Bench in Krishnanand matter held that Mines Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 do not prohibit sale of IOF in any manner if it is demonstrated that accumulation of Iron Ore Fines pollutes surface water bodies and cause environmental pollution[, the petition stated.The order of the single-judge in the present case is per incuriam since it failed to take into account the Division Bench ruling, it was contended..[Read Order]