The Allahabad High Court, while disposing an application, has observed that not providing the advance copy of the application filed by the Director of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 to the applicant would not violate his principles of natural justice inasmuch as the accused has no right to oppose it.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Udhaw Singh.
By means of the application filed under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:-
“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the application preferred under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) corresponding to Section 482 CrPC may kindly be allowed and the order dated 09.01.2025 along with order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI West/ Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow passed in Case U/S 3 & 4 of PMLA, 2002, Police Station-Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zonal Office may kindly be quashed/ set aside in the interest of justice,”
The petition/application, which is an application filed by the Director of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The aforesaid application was filed on 08.01.2025 and the same has been decided on the same date i.e 08.01.2025 whereby that application has been allowed giving permission to Investigating Agency to confront the applicant in Jail in respect of the material/evidence collected during further investigation in respect of other accused persons by recording statement.
Purnendu Chakravarty, Counsel for the applicant has stated that against the applicant the charge-sheet has been filed after completion of the investigation, therefore, the statement of the applicant should have not been recorded during the course of further investigation of other persons.
Even if during further investigation any material or evidence etc has been found, which is relating to the present applicant, at least an advance copy of the application filed by the ED should have been provided to the applicant in Jail so that he may approach his Advocate to oppose such application but no advance copy of that application has been provided to the applicant or his counsel and that application was allowed by the trial court without any opposition on behalf of the applicant.
Chakravarty has further stated that on the next date of order dated 08.01.2025 the counsel for the applicant has filed an application on 09.01.2025 for recall of order dated 08.01.2025 making prayer that order dated 08.01.2025 be recalled and the applicant be provided an opportunity of hearing before disposal of such application. That application was rejected by the trial court on the same date i.e 09.01.2025 in the light of Explanation (ii) of Section 44 (1) of the PMLA, 2002.
The trial court has also observed that the issue in question is a serious issue having fraud, forgery and bungling etc to the tune of thousands crore and the accused applicant would have an opportunity to admit such material or deny the same. The trial court has also observed that the Investigating Agency has the right to file subsequent complaints under Section 44 of the PMLA, 2002.
Purnendu Chakravarty has drawn further attention of the Court towards Section 50 (3) of the PMLA, 2002, which categorically provides that all the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorized agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required.
Chakravarty has submitted that the mandate of the aforesaid provision is that before recording the statement of an accused person he should be summoned and this exercise has not been undertaken in the case inasmuch as an application dated 08.01.2025 has been allowed without providing an advance copy to the applicant or his counsel.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that in view of Section 44 of PMLA, 2002 the subsequent complaint may be filed and in view of Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 such statement of the applicant may be recorded but as an abundant precaution a copy of the application dated 08.01.2025 should have been given to the applicant.
However, further investigation is going on in an issue in question and some material/evidence is said to have been collected by the Investigating Agency, which is/are related to the applicant, therefore, such material or evidence must be confronted with the applicant and his statement should be recorded on that point.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, non providing the advance copy of the application dated 08.01.2025 to the applicant would not violate his principles of natural justice inasmuch as he could have not opposed such application but so as to balance the equity and protecting the rights of the applicant of fair trial, the Court found it appropriate that the statement of the applicant pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2025 would be recorded in the Room of the Superintendent of Jail or Jailer of the Jail, Lucknow in the presence of his counsel so that he could take proper assistance from his counsel.
“The Superintendent of Jail, Lucknow shall make proper arrangements to that effect so that the aforesaid statement could be recorded smoothly without any pressure. The aforesaid statement would be recorded on 06.02.2025 at about 10:30 am. It is needless to say that no interruption of any kind whatsoever would be done from either side,” the order reads.
In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the Court disposed of the application/petition.