| Case Title | Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. vs. Directorate of Enforcement |
| Introduction | The case states that Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee, challenged summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and sought to have them quashed. They argued that the summons should have been issued at their place of residence, Kolkata, rather than New Delhi. |
| Factual Background | FIR was filed in 2020 alleging illegal coal excavation and theft involving Rs. 1300 crores. The ED summoned the appellants for investigation under Section 50 of the PMLA. The appellants challenged the legality of the summons and sought quashing of complaints filed against them for non-compliance. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | The court analysed Section 50 PMLA, concluding that it gives ED powers to summon persons regardless of location. It rejected the appellants’ arguments regarding the protection of women under CrPC, asserting that PMLA provisions override other laws where inconsistent. It upheld the ED’s summons, noting the connection to New Delhi due to the proceeds of crime being transferred there. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ED’s summons and dismissed the appeals, ruling that the PMLA’s provisions took precedence over CrPC safeguards and territorial limitations. |
| Current Scenario | The appellants must comply with the ED’s summons in New Delhi. Rujira Banerjee’s complaint in the lower court will proceed as per law, and no merit was found in the appeals for quashing the summons. |
CASE SUMMARY – In this case, Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee challenged the ED’s summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), contending that they should be summoned in Kolkata instead of New Delhi. The case stems from an investigation into coal theft involving Rs. 1300 crores. The appellants argued for procedural protections under CrPC, but the Supreme Court ruled that PMLA provisions override CrPC safeguards in such cases. The court upheld the summons, citing that the proceeds of crime were linked to New Delhi, and dismissed the appeals. The lower court will proceed with pending complaints against Rujira Banerjee.
“PMLA provisions supersede other laws where inconsistencies arise, prioritizing the fight against financial crime.”- Supreme Court of India
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO – SUMMONING OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 319 CRPC AFTER CONVICTION
