Abhishek Banerjee vs. The Directorate Of Enforcement(Ed)
Held
The Court held that the prayer for quashing the ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2022 was premature. The stage at which the petitioner approached the Court was considered too early in the investigation compared to the present stage, especially since the petitioner had since attended the ED's office and search/seizure had occurred. The Court also noted that the ED had relied only on the 4th Supplementary Complaint and the statement of an accused, Sujay Krishna Bhadra, with no other materials produced to link the petitioner to the ECIR. Consequently, the Court directed that no coercive measures would be taken against the petitioner by the ED without adhering to Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, as explained in the Supreme Court judgment in V. Senthil Balaji –Vs. – State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. The Court did not explicitly decide on the jurisdiction issue raised by the ED, but proceeded to hear the application after the Chief Justice's administrative order. The issue of malice was not directly ruled upon but was part of the petitioner's apprehension.
Facts
The petitioner, Abhishek Banerjee, filed a revisional application challenging proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), specifically ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2022, and a summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the petitioner to pursue remedies available in law, including under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., without prejudice to prior observations. The ED contended that the petitioner had not appeared as summoned and had only communicated regarding documents. A preliminary objection was raised by the ED regarding the High Court's authority to hear the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing a Supreme Court order reassigning proceedings. The Chief Justice of the High Court subsequently assigned the application to Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, who then proceeded to hear the matter after the ED confirmed they would not challenge the administrative order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a revisional application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging proceedings under the PMLA, particularly in light of a Supreme Court order directing reassignment of pending proceedings to another judge. - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through Dr. Singhvi, argued that the summons and ECIR were part of a politically motivated vendetta against him and his family due to his affiliation with the ruling party in West Bengal, citing previous instances of harassment by central agencies. He contended that the ED's actions were mala fide and aimed at destabilizing the state government. - Revenue's (ED) Argument: The ED raised a preliminary objection regarding the High Court's jurisdiction to hear the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing a Supreme Court order that reassigned cases. They maintained that the summons issued was in relation to the Teachers Recruitment Scam and that the investigation was ongoing. The ED also pointed to subsequent orders by Justice Amrita Sinha in related writ petitions that indicated a change in circumstances.
Sections Cited
Section 3, Section 4, Section 50, Section 19, Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present: The Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
C.R.R. 2653 of 2023
Abhishek Banerjee versus The Directorate of Enforcement (ED)
For the Petitioner
: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Basu, Adv., Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Adv., Mr. Ayan Poddar, Adv., Mr. Piyush Kumar Ray, Adv., Mr. Agnish Basu, Adv., Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv.
For the Enforcement Directorate : Mr. S. V. Raju, Ld. A.S.G., Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Adv., Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv., Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv., Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv., Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv., Mr. Ghanashyam Pandey, Adv.
For the affected party
: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., (Soumen Nandy)
Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv., Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv., Ms. Payel Shome, Adv., Ms. Sampriti Saha, Adv.
For the affected party
: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., (Ramesh Malik)
Mr. Arindam Jana, Adv., Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Arka Nandy, Adv., Mr. Sagar Dey, Adv., Mr. Sutirtha Nayek, Adv.
Reserved On : 20
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.