Supreme Court rejects plea by Abhishek Banerjee challenging ED summons

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee for their appearance in Delhi in a money laundering case [Abhishek Banerjee and Anr v. Directorate of Enforcement]..A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma did not find any illegality in the ED summoning Banerjees to Delhi as it noted that a part of the alleged offence had roots in Delhi."As per the specific case of the ED in the complaint, filed against the accused persons before the Special Court, PMLA, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, Rs.168 Crores were allegedly received by the Inspector Ashok Kumar Mishra from the co-accused Anup Majee to be delivered to his political bosses, and the said Rs. 168 Crores were transferred through vouchers to Delhi and Overseas, which clearly established adequate nexus of the offence and the offenders with the territory of Delhi," said the Court.The Court also said that all the persons summoned by the ED in money laundering cases are bound to attend in person or through authorized agents as the officer may direct and are bound to state the truth.It added that any person who disobeys the ED summons is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant) of the Indian Penal Code."As per sub-section (4) of Section 63, a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under Section 50 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of the IPC.".The case relates to the alleged illegal excavation and theft of coal in the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL)..Abhishek Banerjee, who is also a Member of Parliament (MP) was summoned in July 2021. A month later, his wife was also summoned. The TMC MP initially complied with the summons but later challenged the subsequent summons before the Delhi High Court.Meanwhile, the ED filed a complaint before the Patiala House Court in Delhi against Rujira Banerjee for not adhering to the summons. She challenged the proceedings before the High Court.The Banerjees were unsuccessful in securing any relief form the High Court, leading to the challenge before the apex court..A bench headed by Justice Trivedi in a different case in February this year observed that prima facie, a person summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is required to respect and respond to the summons issued by the ED. In the judgment delivered today, the top court said:"Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub- section (3) of Section 50."The Court also said that at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) (protection against forced self-incrimination) of the Constitution, the same being not “testimonial compulsion." As per Article 20(3), no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorized officers. The consequences of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play only if the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official," the Court said, while rejecting the appeals filed by the Banerjees. .[Read Judgment]