Breaking News Delhi High Court adjourns Trinamool MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea,...

Delhi High Court adjourns Trinamool MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea, next hearing on October 6


New Delhi, Oct 1 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court today adjourned its hearing on a petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and his wife Rujira Banerjee challenging the summons issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate in a case of alleged money laundering in the West Bengal coal scam.

A single-judge bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna was hearing the submissions of Senior Advocate Sidhartha Agarwal, who was appearing for the petitioners, and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appearing for the ED.

The Court refused to grant interim protection to the petitioners as sought by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.

Senior Advocate Sidhartha Agarwal, who was supplementing arguments of Kapil Sibal for Abhishek Banerjee, submitted an ED officer has the power to arrest under Section 19 of PMLA, he need not rely on CrPC to find these powers. He added CrPC provides certain protections to the people being arrested, no one can state arrestees don’t have those protections, under PMLA.

He further submitted there are no provisions in PMLA granting the ED custody of an accused, more so once such an arrest is made, there is no provision for the length of custody in PMLA, Section 167 CrPC is relied on, for the same.

Senior Advocate Agarwal stated that if an offence is committed, it will be in the purview of CrPC by the virtue of Section 4 CrPC, unless is statutorily barred, to enhance this point made he relied upon Directorate Of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan, 1994 AIR 1775:

“To sum up, Section 4 is comprehensive and that Section 5 is not in derogation of Section 4(2) and it only relates to the extent of application of the Code in the matter of territorial and other jurisdiction but does not nullify the effect of Section 4(2). In short, the provisions of this Code would be applicable to the extent in the absence of any contrary provision in the special Act or any special provision excluding the jurisdiction or applicability of the Code. In fact, the second limb of Section 4(2) itself limits the application of the provisions of the Code reading……. but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.”

Senior Advocate Agarwal went on to read Section 65 of PMLA to state, PMLA will apply, but where PMLA is silent, CrPC will apply. Section 65 of PMLA says: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply.—The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act.”

Countering the argument of ED that there is no territoriality in PMLA, Senior Advocate Agarwal invited the court’s attention Section 16 of PMLA. Section 16 (1) (i) of PMLA says: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where an authority, on the basis of material in his possession, has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) that an offence under section 3 has been committed, he may enter any place—

(i) within the limits of the area assigned to him
Relying on Section 16 of PMLA he stated, it is a clear mandate that ED is not above territoriality.

For the ED, ASG S.V. Raju submitted Section 160 of CrPC does not apply to PMLA, as in this case there is an inherent conflict between Section 50 of PMLA and Section 160 of CrPC. He added, there is an omission in Section 50 of PMLA of the provisions mentioned in Section 160 of CrPC and the omission amounts to contradiction.

He further submitted, the legislature was aware of the territorial limitation envisaged in Section 160 of CrPC and deliberately chose to omit these, in Section 50 PMLA, furthermore, there is a deliberate departure, as in Section 50 PMLA the powers conferred on the IO are under CPC and not CrPC./ILNS/KR/SNG/


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Delhi High Court adjourns Trinamool MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea, next hearing on October 6

New Delhi, Oct 1 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court today adjourned its hearing on a petition filed...

Delhi High Court directs Centre, Delhi govt, Tihar Jail DGP to release prisoners without insisting on bail bonds

New Delhi, Oct 1 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court today disposed of a petition, seeking the release...

Delhi High Court directs Lady Hardinge Hospital to ascertain feasibility of medical termination of 23-week pregnancy

New Delhi, Oct 1 (ILNS: The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Lady Hardinge Hospital to constitute a...

SC issues notice in a plea seeking removal of the mandatory requirement of Aadhar info for vaccination

New Delhi, Oct 1, (ILNS) The Supreme Court issued a notice, in a plea seeking effective and...

CJI expresses displeasure over the working of Senior Police Officers in the Country

New Delhi, Oct 1 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today extended an interim protection to Gurjinder Pal Singh,...

SC rejects plea of Abdul Nasser Madani, key accused in 2008 Bengaluru serial blasts, to be shifted to his home state Kerala instead of...

New Delhi, Oct 1 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today rejected the plea of Abdul Nasser Madani, a...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you