The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife-Rujira Banerjee's pleas challenging Enforcement Directorate's summons in an illegal coal mining case. The husband and wife claimed Kolkata to be their ordinary place of residence, and thus challenged the ED summons as they required attendance at New Delhi.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the verdict today. The bench had reserved the judgment on August 13. The top court agreed with ED's argument 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 apex court also said that being a Member of Parliament, Abhishek Banerjee's official residence was in Delhi. It further added that the ED’s Delhi office has territorial jurisdiction as a part of the offence was allegedly committed in Delhi as per the complaint.
Banerjees had contended that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should apply on the summons, since the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 does not specifically provide any procedure in this regard.
They moved court arguing that they can be asked to appear only in Kolkata as the offence is alleged to have taken place there and not in New Delhi.
"..we do not find any substance in the challenge made by the Appellants to the Summons issued to the Appellants under Section 50 of the PMLA. As contemplated in the sub-section (3) of Section 50, all the persons summoned are bound to attend in person or through authorized agents as the officer may direct and are bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and to produce the documents as may be required," the order read.
ALSO READ | 'Who Took Samples Is Relevant': CBI Raises Suspicion Over RG Kar Victim's Forensic Report In SC
The court noted that as per sub-section (4) thereof every proceeding under sub sections (2) and (3) is deemed to be a Judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the IPC.
"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 top court held.
ALSO READ | Kolkata Doctor Rape & Murder Case: SC Orders Bengal Govt To Give Proper Accommodation To CISF By 5PM
The court said that the Status Report submitted by ED's Deputy Director, Rujira Banerjee had not appeared and not produced the documents as required vide the Summons dated 04.08.2021 and 18.08.2021. The ED therefore had filed the Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against her under Section 63 PMLA r/w Section 174 IPC.
"Suffice it to say that we do not find any illegality in the said orders passed by the concerned court and that the said complaint shall
be proceeded further by the said Court in accordance with law," the top court order said.
