Read Time: 10 minutes

All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) leader Abhishek Banerjee's wife, Rujira Banerjee, has approached the Delhi High Court challenging Enforcement Directorate's complaint against her before a trial court in a money laundering case linked to an alleged coal scam in West Bengal. 

Rujira has challenged the trial court order taking cognizance of the complaint and the subsequent issuance of summons for physical appearance in the case.

Rujira states in her petition that it was wrongly alleged that she did not comply with two (2) summons(es) dated Aug 4 and Aug 18 issued to her by the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

She states that that the materials appended to the ED's Complaint themselves "show that the ingredients of Section 174 IPC are not prima facie made out since (a) there was no intentional disobedience, (b) the Petitioner maintained constant communication with the Respondent and (c) requested for examination at her residence in Kolkata, in accordance with law and parity". She alleges that her requests were all ignored by ED.

She further submits that the two said summons(es) anyhow lack jurisdiction and are contrary to Section 160 CrPC and that her challenge to the same is pending before the the Delhi High Court itself.

She states in her plea that despite the given factual background, summons were issued for the her appearance on Sep 30, and "in due compliance" she "appeared through VC and counsel, and sought for exemption under Section 205 CrPC, which was allowed."

She argues that the complaint is arbitrary, without any basis and merely intended to harass her and her family.

Earlier, Banerjee and his wife had moved the Delhi High Court against the summons order issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with respect to the alleged offences in connection with the West Bengal coal mining scam.

They had sought a direction to the ED for quashing and setting aside of the summons dated September 10 issued by the ED and further sought directions not to summon Banerjee and his wife in case arising out of ECIR No. 17/HIU/2020 dated 28.11.2020 registered by the ED in pursuance of FIR No. RC0102020A0022 dated 27.11.2020 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kolkata.

The petition filed through Advocates Rupin Bahl and Angad Mehta had submitted that neither Banerjee nor his wife had been named in the FIR with respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals.

However, the ED based on the above FIR on the very next day and for reasons unknown, registered the ECIR No. 17/HIU/2020 in the Head Investigative Unit (“HIU”)  located in New Delhi.

They had submitted that “there exists no jurisdiction for the HIU of the Respondent agency to assume investigative powers in respect of allegations of money laundering arising in respect of the scheduled offence as the same could only have been investigated into by the concerned zonal office at Kolkata”.

It was also submitted that Banerjee and his wife have been repeatedly summoned by the ED at New Delhi without supplying a copy of the ECIR and without specifying whether they being summoned as witnesses or accused, nor indicating the scope of the investigation being carried out.

They argued that the ED cannot be allowed to exercise “the threat of prosecution and penalty inherent under Section 50 of the PMLA to coerce persons to become witnesses against themselves and violate the fundamental protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950.”

Arguing that the proper place of examining the petitioners ought to be Kolkata West Bengal, the petitioners have submitted that “Section 65 of PMLA which makes the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) applicable to investigations and other proceedings under PMLA in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA, and hence a summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, to a person who is not an accused, would be akin to a notice issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C., since nothing in the latter is inconsistent with the former. It is submitted that the powers of an officer under the PMLA would be circumscribed by Section 160 Cr.P.C., in so far as summoning a person from beyond the officer’s jurisdiction is concerned, which in this case would be a person resident beyond the territorial limits of New Delhi. Therefore, in terms of the above, the examination of persons, such as the Petitioner  in this case, must take place in Kolkata, West Bengal, where the Respondent has a functional and fully equipped zonal office.”

They also further raised serious apprehensions about the fairness of the investigation being conducted by the ED alleging that the ED is adopting “a pick and choose attitude" with respect to certain persons and is giving undue benefit  and protection to complicit individuals and in return extracting false, baseless, and malicious statements from them.

Cause Title: Rujira Banerjee vs Directorate of Enforcement represented by its Assistant Director