Read Time: 08 minutes

All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife have moved the Delhi High Court against the summons order issued by the Enforcement Directorate with respect to the alleged offences in connection with the West Bengal Coal mining scam.

Banerjee and his wife have sought a direction to the ED for quashing of for quashing and setting aside of the summons dated September 10 issued by the ED and further   direction  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. No. RC0102020A0022 dated 27.11.2020 registered by CBI ACB, Kolkata.

The petition filed through Advocates Rupin Bahl and Angad Mehta submits that neither Banerjee nor his wife have 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.

The Petitioners have 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 has further been 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.

The petitioners have 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 No. 1 and 2 in this case, must take place in Kolkata, West Bengal, where the Respondent has a functional and fully equipped zonal office.”

The Petitioners have  further raised serious apprehensions about the fairness of the investigation being conducted by the ED owing to the fact 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.

It has also been alleged that that agency is also selectively leaking information to the media with the intent of harming the reputation of the Petitioners and encouraging a media trial in order to falsely embroil the Petitioners in baseless and scandalous allegations.  

Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee and Anr vs Enforcement Directorate represented by its Assistant Directors