Delhi HC issues Corrigendum in Coal Scam Case Ruling [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has issued a corrigendum for atypographical error in the coal scam case ruling. The Court had been notified that a typographical error resulted in the statement "a person who is named in the ECIR cannot seek its quashing" being mentioned in paragraph no. 29 of the judgment dated 17.11.2023 rather than "a person who is not named in ECIR cannot seek its quashing." In the same line, there is another misspelling in the extraction of an Apex Court judgment. The Court has also considered the decision of Apex Court in case of Hukum Chand Garg & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. observed that a person who is not named in the ECIR cannot seek its quashing. Thus according to the judgment the court corrected the error occurred in paragraph 29 of the Judgment. The fact of the original case was that, the writ petition was filed by petitioner Moloy Ghatak for quashing the ECIR issued by respondent Directorate Of Enforcement for summoning the petitioner to appear at New Delhi under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) and further directing and issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to not summon the petitioner to New Delhi in case arising out of ECIR/17/HIU/2020 registered by the respondent on 28.11.2020. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR for the commission of offenses under Sections 120B/409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for illegal excavation and theft of coal from the leasehold area of Eastern Coalfield Ltd. (ECL) in active connivance with officials of ECL, CISF, Indian Railways and concerned other departments against certain employees of ECL and Other public servants and private persons. Further the offenses mentioned in the said FIR/RC were scheduled offenses under PMLA, therefore, the present ECIR was recorded by respondent on 28.11.2020 against Anup Majee and other accused persons for the commission of offenses under PMLA. During the course of investigation the respondent summoned the petitioner for examination. However, he had appeared before the agency only once . The grievance of petitioner is that respondent agency, i.e. Directorate of Enforcement has issued the impugned summons to the petitioner in a mala-fide manner intending to harass him. summons have been issued in complete violation of the established and fundamental principles of Cr.P.C., PMLA and the Constitution of India.Further the petitioner was 67 years old serving as the Cabinet Law Minister in the Government of West Bengal. Therefore the petitioner apprehended that upon appearing before the respondent's officers in New Delhi, he will endure mental and psychic torture, coercion, threats, and intimidation. In addition, he will be forced to testify against himself and provide incriminating statements against others. Counsel for the petitioner argued that It is argued that petitioner herein has not been named in the aforementioned FIR/RC which forms the predicate offense in the instant case. Further respondent has repeatedly summoned the Petitioner without supplying a copy of the ECIR and without specifying whether he is being summoned as a witness or accused person or indicating the scope of the investigation being carried out and further enabling the petitioner to avail his remedies. The counsel for petitioner also argued that petitioner cannot be compelled to appear before the office of respondent in Delhi in view of Section 160 of Cr.P.C. and interim orders passed in case of Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement. Special Counsel for Directorate of Enforcement submits that for the purpose of investigation under PMLA, the petitioner need not be arraigned as an accused in the schedule offense and the proceedings under Section 50 of PMLA are for the purpose of collecting information or evidence and are not for the purpose of initiating prosecution against the notice. Further argued that respondent is well within its powers to summon the petitioner for the purposes of proceedings under PMLA and to seek supply of documents, irrespective of the volume of the same. The court during the proceedings observed that the power conferred upon the authorities by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA empower them to summon any person whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any records during the course of investigation or proceedings under PMLA. The investigation in the present ECIR is still continuing and the petitioner has only been summoned to appear and submit certain documents. Having gone through the contents of present petition and in view of the judicial precedents the Court finds no ground to quash the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA to the petitioner. Further in case of ECIR the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not an accused for offense under PMLA and he is only being summoned under Section 50 of PMLA for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceedings under PMLA . The court relied upon the decision of Hukum Chand Garg & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. observed that a person who is not named in the ECIR cannot seek its quashing. After reviewing the facts and case laws the single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, directed that respondent to take the attendance of the petitioner in its office situated at Kolkata by giving at least 24 hours‘ notice, in the original case. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Delhi HC issues Corrigendum in Coal Scam Case Ruling [Read Order]

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics