Supreme Court dismisses Abhishek Banerjee’s plea against ED summons
The court agreed with the ED that the investigation into the case had established an “adequate nexus” of the offence and the offenders in Delhi and hence summoning was not wrong
The Supreme Court on Monday directed Trinamool Congress (TMC) member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee and his wife, Rujira, to appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Delhi in connection with the probe against them in an illegal coal mining case.
A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma agreed with the ED that the investigation into the case established an “adequate nexus” of the offence and the offenders in Delhi and hence summoning them there was not wrong.
The couple moved the court after the ED summoned them in September 2021. They expressed willingness for questioning at ED’s Kolkata office since they live there.
The bench cited the ED’s status report and noted that the agency filed a complaint against the accused in a special court in New Delhi. It added inspector Ashok Kumar Mishra allegedly received ₹168 crore from the co-accused Anup Majee to be delivered to his “political bosses”.
“...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. We therefore do not find any illegality in the summons issued by the respondent [ED] summoning the appellants to its office in Delhi,” the bench said.
It added ED’s Delhi office has territorial jurisdiction as a part of the offence was allegedly committed in the national capital as per the complaint. “It is also not disputed that the appellant [Banerjee] being a Member of Parliament has also an official residence in Delhi.”
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the couple, told the Supreme Court that summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should follow the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). They added that PMLA Section 50 only provides ED the power to summon without specifying the procedure. They argued that Section 160 of CrPC, which deals with the summoning of witnesses, makes an exception for women. Singhvi pointed out that Rujira has two minor children to look after and she is not an accused in the case.
The ED argued the PMLA has specific exceptions for women where it is needed. It added the legislature has consciously not provided an exemption for women in Section 50 as there are practical difficulties considering the volume of documents that the witness needs to be confronted with, making it difficult for the same to be done at the residence of the woman.