The Calcutta High Court has held that an advocate of the accused can’t be permitted to present in course of interrogation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Enforcement Directorate through its Assistant Director has filed the criminal revision. The competent authority of the Federal Bank, Park Street Branch lodged an FIR against one Aamir Khan under Sections 420/406/409/468/479/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging commission of cheating, criminal misappropriation of money and forgery. A similar complaint was lodged against the above named accused by two private complainants at Hare Street Police Station.
During the investigation, it was ascertained that the said Aamir Khan and his associates committed criminal misappropriation of a huge amount of money by introducing false and forged online gaming Apps and insisting upon the users of the said App to spread the said online gaming Apps to others alluring and enticing high monetary return. Money earned, was also used in crypto currency and bit coins purchased through various accounts which amount to a violation of penal provisions under the PMLA.
The Enforcement Directorate searched the house of the opposite party/accused and recovered a sum of Rs.1.6 crore in cash from his house. The statement of the opposite party/accused was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA where he admitted his involvement in a fake online gaming process and accumulation of money by way of criminal misappropriation and cheating from the user of the Apps. The opposite party/accused was arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA.
TheEnforcement Directorate was troubled that by passing the impugned order, the Magistrate permitted the learned Advocate for the opposite party to remain present at the time of investigation by the investigating officer of the said case.
It was argued by the petitioner that the Magistrate failed to appreciate the difference between the accused person’s entitlement to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation and giving unfettered authority to the Advocate for the accused/opposite party to remain present in course of investigation and interrogation of the accused/opposite party.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed that such the presence of the advocate for the accused/opposite party during interrogation will also reveal the course and direction of the investigation to others and the investigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate would not be able to interrogate the accused.
While allowing the criminal revision, the HC directed the petitioner to serve further notice upon the opposite party/accused under registered speed post with acknowledgement due within the next working day and file an affidavit of service within seven days from the date of thisorder.
The HC modified the relevant portion of the impugned order directing the Enforcement Directorate to check up on the opposite party/accused medically after a gap of each 48 hours during his detention in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
