The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Jharkhand Chief Minister, Hemant Soren and held that mere use of inconsistent expressions in affidavit not ground to hold that materials in possession of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were insufficient.
The petitioner alleged that repeated summons issued by the ED were actuated with malice and part of the political conspiracy to destabilize the elected Government in the State of Jharkhand. The summons issued by the ED ignored his reply through letters and furnishing of the details of movable and immovable properties, details of Bank accounts and PAN number.
The petitioner raised a question also to the jurisdiction of the ED to investigate the offence of money-laundering by starting a fresh inquiry into the assets acquired by him more than 15 years ago which were duly reported to and accepted by the Income Tax Authority as legally acquired property. The petitioner apprehended that this is part of the game plan of the BJP to wreck political vendetta against the Opposition leaders who have united to form INDIA Alliance in which he and his party are vocal participants.
Kapil Sibal, the senior counsel for the petitioner contended that illegal possession of the subject property at Bargai is not the proceeds of crime generated from the predicate offence and the summons issued to the petitioner is without jurisdiction and therefore the entire proceeding taken thereunder is vitiated. A roving and fishing inquiry into the assets of a person is not contemplated under the PMLA and the ED cannot issue summons under section 50(2) compelling a person to give a statement unless it has reasons to believe that any assets was acquired with the proceeds of crime generated from a predicate offence.
The ASG contended that the writ petition cannot be held not maintainable because there are other issues involved therein, such as, the legality of arrest and remand of the petitioner and the jurisdiction of the ED to register ECIR and make inquiries against him.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar held that “There is no goof-ups in the ED’s case and the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition have to be read with reference to the documents appended therewith and the mere use of some inconsistent or contradictory expressions in the affidavit cannot be a ground to hold that the materials in possession of the ED were insufficient or that the arresting officer himself was confused.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
