New Delhi: Hours before being questioned in a money laundering case linked to a coal mining scam in West Bengal, Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira moved the Supreme Court challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s decision to interrogate them in Delhi in breach of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) safeguards.
Though senior advocate A M Singhvi was ready to mention the Banerjees’ petition for urgent hearing and request for interim relief, it could not materialise as CJI N VRamana cancelled the mentioning process because of some administrative exigencies. They have challenged the Delhi High Court order of March 13 which validated the ED’s decision to summon them to Delhi for interrogation.
The Banerjees said the summons were issued by the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) under the wrong understanding that the Act was a complete code, working de hors the CrPC. The petition jointly filed by the husband-wife duo quoted Section 160 of the CrPC, which they said provided two important safeguards - (i) attendance of a witness can be sought only in the local police station, and (ii) in case of a woman, the attendance shall only be at her place of residence.
“The ED didn’t even attempt to interrogate the petitioners at Kolkata. It is still unclear as to what are the impediments that the ED will face if it interrogates the petitioners at their full-fledged office in Kolkata, rather than a bald assertion of powers under Section 50 to investigate in New Delhi,” they said.
They also questioned the assumption of pan-India jurisdiction made by the ED, irrespective of the place of occurrence of the alleged offence. “Being a pan-India agency means that the ED has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at any place in India. But such pan-India status does not and cannot mean that the principles of territoriality and local cause of action can be obliterated. It cannot mean that the ED can suo motu vest jurisdiction to a place that otherwise lacks jurisdiction.”
