TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iner Counsel, ED, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Raghav Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Vigilance: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Special P.P. CAV JUDGMENT Originally, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- "I. For issuance of writ/order/direction including writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. II. For issuance of Writ/order/direction including writ in the nature of mandamus refraining the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, by itself or through its officers or agents, from undertaking any further coercive action, including issuance of any fresh summons, any fresh search, seizure or investigation against the petitioner or its officers/employees based on or arising out of ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 and ECIR/PTZO/4/2024. III. For any other relief/reliefs which the petitioner is found entitled to on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case." 2. Subsequently, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for adding certain reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gang rape by the accused Gulab Yadav and Sanjeev Hans. The informant lodged a complaint petition before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna under Sections 323, 346, 376, 376D, 420, 313, 120B, 504 and 506,34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act'), which was sent to the SHO, Rupaspur for registration of the FIR and consequently, the aforementioned FIR came to be registered. It appears that on the basis of the aforementioned FIR, treating Sections 420 and 120B of IPC therein as the scheduled offences under the PMLA, respondent-ED registered Enforcement Case Information Report in the Patna Zonal Office of Directorate of Enforcement bearing No. ECIR/PTZO/20/4/2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'ECIR-4') Dated 14.03.2024, copy of which has not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has not been named as an accused or suspect in the said report so far as his knowledge goes. On 16.07.2024, respondent-ED conducted search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the PMLA at various premises, including the offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment of Bihar wherein, during the relevant period, Sanjeev Hans had been working as its Secretary and, therefore, it was alleged that transfer of Rs. 20 lakh was nothing but bribe money meant for Sanjeev Hans. It is further alleged by respondent-ED that petitioner was involved in connivance with senior Bihar Government Officials in manipulating and rigging government tenders across multiple departments. Respondent-ED has further alleged that the petitioner had stated in his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA that he had paid commissions ranging from 2-3.5 percent of the bill amounts to the officials of the departments where his associated entities had been executing contracts as contractors or sub-contractors. It has further been alleged that petitioner, using his connections with senior officers and employees of such departments, gets information crucial for various tenders in advance and based on it he secures tenders for himself and for the entities of his network and the petitioner also manipulates the tenders by getting incorporated various specifications which are favourable to his entities. By this modus operandi, when the tenders are floated by the departments, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 and 22.09.2025, respectively. However, the petitioner requested for extension of time to appear before respondent-ED due to his ill health. Thereafter, respondent-ED issued another summon under Section 50 of the PMLA on 23.09.2025 to the petitioner for his appearance on 07.07.2025. Harbouring apprehension that respondent-ED would take coercive measures against the petitioner to force him to give self-incriminating statement, the petitioner filed a criminal writ before the Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 411 of 2025, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the writ petition, though it relegated the petitioner to raise all his contentions before appropriate forum and, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 17.10.2025. Aggrieved by the institution of ECIR-13 and proceeding arising therefrom and also proceeding arising from ECIR-4, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned senior counsel, Ms Nandita Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the impugned ECIR, i.e., ECIR-13 is unsustainable in law as it is a second, parallel and derivative ECIR. Ms Rao further submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CrPC') contemplates only further investigation in respect of the same transaction and does not prescribe a fresh, parallel, or de novo investigation on an identical factual foundation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762, has held that a de novo investigation cannot be undertaken by the investigating agency except with the express permission of the competent superior authority or the Court. She further submitted that statutory scheme does not permit successive investigation to be initiated at the discretion of the investigating agency. Thus, Ms Rao reiterated that the registration of ECIR-13, being in the nature of a de novo investigation on the same set of facts, is unsustainable. She further submitted that this legal position has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of UP, 2026 INSC 120, wherein it has been categorically held that where the investigating agency forms an opinion that further investigation is necessary, it is binding upon the agency to move an appropriate application befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. It has further been held that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of CrPC, only the earliest or the first information with regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. 8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the Third FIR, respondent no. 5 has acknowledged that similar allegations are already under investigation in Second FIR, thereby precluding the possibility of registration of Third FIR for duplication of fact. Ms Rao stressed that the object behind registration of the Third FIR, despite having awareness of all the facts and knowledge, was to create jurisdiction for Enforcement Directorate (ED) to create a new ECIR and to evergreen their jurisdiction so as to perpetually keep the petitioner in gross fear. Ms Rao further submitted that the prosecution initiated by ED against the Petitioner is completely mala fide and abuse of Section 66 of the PMLA, which has been conceived as a facilitative provision for inter-agency coordination and not to manufacture or evergreen jurisdiction. Ms Rao reiterated that both the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of BNSS/CrPC and the procedure laid down thereunder are applicable to the proceedings under the PMLA. Section 65 of the PMLA clearly states that the provisions of CrPC/BNSS unless inconsistent with any other provisions of the PMLA are applicable to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and other proceedings under the PMLA. Further, in view of Section 71 of the PMLA, the provisions of the PMLA shall only have an overriding effect in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of the PMLA and the provisions of BNSS/CrPC subject to the scope and ambit of Section 65 of the PMLA. In this regard, learned senior counsel referred to a number of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, including (i) Ashok Munilal Vs. Assistant Director, (2018) 16 SCC 158; (ii) Yash Tuteja Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 533; (iii) Tarsem Lal Vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61. Ms Rao further submitted that since the PMLA proceedings do not prescribe any distinct statutory mechanism or safeguards or for recording of confessional statements, when the statement is recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that tactics of the respondent-ED against the petitioner in recording his statement amounts to gaslighting. The petitioner has been repeatedly threatened with penal consequences and compelled to sign coerced statement rendering the proceedings unsustainable. Ms Rao reiterated that the statements of the petitioner recorded by the ED in ECIR-4 have been used to register ECIR-13 is in violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash (supra). However, she submitted that though Prem Prakash (supra) contemplates of a situation where the statement of an accused is recorded while he is in custody in another case, the analogy can be extended to the present situation wherein the Petitioner was in a vulnerable position due to the threat of arrest and the ED officials were in a dominating position. 12. Ms Rao further submitted that the petitioner has all along been cooperating in the investigation and he had appeared before ED on more than 35 occasions in connection with ECIR-4. His statement was recorded by ED on multiple occasions and the petitioner has provided various documents, as demanded by the ED. This shows the bona fide of the petitioner to cooperate w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner is not a public servant, he is merely a contractor. There is no allegation of cheating and there was no offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. So, there was no predicate offence in the First FIR so as to proceed against the petitioner under the PMLA. Moreover, for initiation of proceeding under the PMLA and bringing Section 24 of the PMLA regarding reversal of burden of proof, the prosecution has first to establish that there exists proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(u) of the PMLA. But the petitioner's company worked as contractor and subcontractor for different companies and payments were made against invoices and reflected in IT/GST records. These are normal business transactions. Therefore, if there is no proceed of crime, the whole substratum of the case against the petitioner would go and institution of ECIR-13 by the ED is merely a tactics to harass the petitioner and to extract self-incriminating confession, which should not be allowed. Hence, this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must intervene in the matter and quash the whole proceeding in ECIR-13 as well as proceedings arising out of ECIR-4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the subject matter of ECIR-13. Therefore, the scheduled offences in two ECIRs arise from different FIRs instituted for different offences. 19. Controverting the claim of the petitioner that registration of a Second FIR and initiating a fresh investigation on the basis of same alleged transaction is illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, referring to the decision in the case of T.T. Antony (supra), learned Special counsel submitted that the decision of T.T. Antony (supra) has no application in the given facts and circumstances. Mr. Hossain relied on the decision in the case of Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 2 SCC 322, wherein considering the registration of second FIR in relation to the same facts but constituting different offences, and finding the ambit and scope of investigation entirely different, Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant relief to the accused and rejected the contention that the entire investigation in the subsequent FIR was illegal for the reason that fresh facts came to light and the scope of investigation was broadened by the facts which came to be disclosed subsequently. Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the compar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milarly, in the case of in State of Bombay vs. S.L. Apte, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 56, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the two offences are distinct, then notwithstanding the fact that the allegations in the two complaints might be substantially similar, the second prosecution cannot be barred. Further, in the case of Monica Bedi v. State of A.P., (2011) 1 SCC 284, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that the same set of facts may give rise to different offences and separate prosecution and punishment under different statues. Therefore, the submission challenging the maintainability of the Second FIR, and on that ground challenge to ECIR-13, is completely misconceived. Learned Special Counsel, thus, submitted that even the reliance placed on the decision of Vinay Tyagi(supra) and Pramod Kumar (supra) regarding further investigation with authorization is misplaced due to dissimilarity of facts. 21. Learned Special Counsel further submitted that, moreover, predicate offences were never challenged and as multiple FIRs could be subsumed for investigation under one ECIR, the challenge to ECIR-13 is completely without any basis. Mr. Hossain reiterated that Thir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst self-incrimination provided under Article 20(3) at the stage of recording of statement under section 50 of the PMLA, till a person has either been arrested or has formally been arrayed as an accused by way of a prosecution complaint. Otherwise, the said right is not available to a person. Mr. Hossain further submitted that the petitioner's statement under section 50 were recorded in the present case prior to the issuance of letter dated 14.02.2025 and, therefore, prior to the registration of the FIR dated 30.04.2025 containing the scheduled offences, the petitioner was not an accused at that time to claim the protection of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Mr. Hossain further submitted that it is settled principle of law that a person is not an accused at the stage of summons or recording of the statements pursuant to summons and referred to the decision in the case of K.I. Pavunny Vs. Assistant Collector (HQ), (1997) 3 SCC 721, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a statement recorded or given by the person suspected of having committed an offence during the inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act or during confiscation proceedings is not by a person accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court held that the protection to the accused against any self-incrimination guaranteed by the Constitution is very strongly built into the Indian statutory framework and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found absolutely no reason to draw any help from the 'Miranda Principles' for providing protection against self-incrimination to the accused. Mr. Hossain pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of three Judges Bench delivered in the case of Nandini Satpathy (supra) and noted that in the end, the Court refrained from entirely transplanting the 'Miranda Rules' into the laws under the Indian criminal system and, with regard to the Indian realities, suggested certain guidelines. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Hossain submitted that the submission of the petitioner on this account is liable to be rejected as the parameters of Section 164(4) CrPC cannot be imported into Section 50 of the PMLA, and the concept of 'Miranda Warnings' has not application in the Indian system of law. Mr. Hossain further submitted that in the case of Nandini Satpathy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about necessity of presence of lawyer during custodial interr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out. Mr. Hossain, thus, submitted that the manner of taking statements will not vitiate the statements. Statements may contain admissions of facts not amounting to confessions and therefore would, in any event, be admissible. All these issues are matters of trial and cannot be decided at this stage in a writ proceeding. 25. Mr. Hossain next submitted that Section 154 CrPC starts with the expression "every information relating to the commission of cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced into writing by him..." Therefore, at the stage of registering an FIR, it is sufficient if there is information of commission of cognizable offences and the admissibility, correctness or veracity of such statements or information would be a matter of investigation and subsequent trial upon filing of a final report. The petitioner's contention that such information must meet the requirement of admissibility of evidence is misplaced and hence on this ground alone the petition deserves to fail. 26. Mr. Hossain further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n aggrieved in the eyes of law at the stage of summons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirit Shrimankar v. Union of India & Ors. in WP (CrL.) No. 109/2013 and connected matters, had held that seeking extraordinary remedy merely on account of issuance of summons at the stage of investigation is highly premature and it would be for the petitioner to work out his remedy as and when some action is taken against the petitioner. Mr. Hossain further submitted that there is no violation of any right of the petitioner warranting interference of this Court, at the stage of summons. The powers have been conferred upon the Enforcement Officers for the purpose of complete and effective investigation which includes the power to summon and examine any person. At the time of such investigative process, the person summoned is not an accused. Mere recording of ECIR by giving a file number does not make a person an accused. Mr. Hossain further submitted that law is well settled that the Courts do not interdict the powers of investigating agencies conferred upon them by the statutes and placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence under the PC Act, a private person can be tried for PC Act as well as non-PC Act offences. 30. Mr. Hossain, thereafter, submitted that Section 66(2) of the PMLA casts a mandatory duty upon the Investigating Officer to share the information and materials collected with the other concerned law enforcement agencies if such disclosure is considered necessary for enabling those authorities to discharge their statutory functions. He further submitted that FIR No. 05/2025 was registered by the Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar, Patna against the petitioner and others for the commission of offences under Sections 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act read with Sections 3(2), 6(2) and 15 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 61, 318 (4), 338 and 340 (2) of the BNS on the basis of the information furnished by the Joint Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zone to the Additional Director General of the Economic Offences Unit, Patna under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA. Mr. Hossain referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Tuteja v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2110, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the FIRs registered on the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t even challenged the said ECIR, and therefore, the contention is wholly irrelevant. He submitted that any requirement of seeking permission for further investigation, in case it applies, would apply only within the contours of the same case. Such a requirement cannot be extended to a separate and distinct ECIR and he again referred to the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) wherein it has been observed that permission for further investigation would be required only during the trial. Mr. Hossain submitted that it is well settled that the trial commences only after framing of charges, whereas in the present case, charges are yet to be framed. On this aspect, Mr. Hossain also relied on the decision in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92. Mr. Hossain further submitted that in the case of State of T.N. Vs. Hemendhra Reddy, (2023) 16 SCC 779, after discussing a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the various decisions cited hereinabove, it is well settled that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the provisions of law relevant for deciding the issues involved. Section 3 of the PMLA defines the offence of money-laundering and it reads as under: "3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering." Section 2(u) of the PMLA describes what is proceeds of crime and the provision reads as under: "2.Definitions................................ (u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property;" The PMLA also defines 'investigation' in the following term: "2. Definitions.--............................... (na) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Act conducted by the Director or by an authority authorised by the Central Government under this Act for the collection of evidence;" Sections 2(x) and 2(y) of the PMLA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the property is not involved in money-laundering. (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or record seized under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, such attachment or retention of the seized property or record shall- (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any scheduled offence before a court; and (b) become final after the guilt of the person is proved in the trial court and order of such trial court becomes final. (4)...................... (5)........................ (6)........................ " Section 17 deals with search and seizure under the PMLA which reads as under: 17. Search and seizure.-- (1) Where the Director, on the basis of information in his possession, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person-- (i) has committed any act which constitutes money-laundering, or (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risation referred to in sub-section (1) shall be required for search under this sub-section. 12 (4) The authority, seizing any record or property under this section, shall, within a period of thirty days from such seizure, file an application, requesting for retention of such record or property, before the Adjudicating Authority." Explanation (ii) of Section 44 of the PMLA reads as under: "Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,-- (i) ........................................ (ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not." Authorities have been defined under Section 48 of the PMLA, which reads as under: "48. Authorities under Act.-- There shall be the following classes of authorities for the purposes of this Act, namely:-- (a) Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, (b) Deputy Director, 22 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g could be continued to gaslight the petitioner to force him in making self incriminatory statements. It has also been contended that under Section 173(8) CrPC, further investigation is allowed but for the same transaction, a fresh or de novo investigation is barred under the law. Analogy has also been drawn based on the decisions in the case of T. T. Antony (supra), Vinjay Tyagi (supra) and Pramod Kumar (supra), that no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information is permissible. However, before embarking upon a journey to test the legality of ECIR-13, it would be beneficial to consider the nature of the document in question, i.e., ECIR. Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is an internal document used by the ED to start a money-laundering investigation under the PMLA, 2002 but it has no statutory basis, though it is similar in function to an FIR because the term 'ECIR' is not used anywhere in the PMLA. Therefore, even when no ECIR has been recorded, it does not come in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the PMLA to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of attachment of property being proceeds of crime b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt for situations where the predicate offences have been quashed, a document like ECIR, per se, is not liable to be quashed not being in the nature of FIR. 39. Further, challenge to ECIR-13 is also on other grounds. So far as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner about contents of ECIR-13 being based on ECIR-4 is concerned, I think such contention is premature. ECIR-13 has not seen the light of the day in public domain as the document has never been put in public domain. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioner is based on conjectures and surmises. If the petitioner has rushed to challenge this document before this Court when the document has not even come in the hands of the petitioner, the claim that it is nothing but reiteration and resubmission of ECIR-4 is only speculative. This undue haste would not help the cause of the petitioner. Unless, ECIR takes the shape of prosecution complaint or FIR, it would remain an internal document of the department and in absence of specific details showing similarity or sameness with previous FIR, the petitioner cannot ask for quashing the ECIR-13. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is premature at this point of time and ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d they are in respect of different offences, second FIR is permissible. In the present case, apart from different version in the FIRs alleging different incidents with further allegation of larger conspiracy, the Second FIR is quite sustainable. At the same time, it is also to be taken note of that the predicate offences have not been challenged and even in the present writ petition, there is no challenge to the subsequent FIR. For this reason, I find merit in the submission of learned Special Counsel for the ED that a number of FIRs could be subsumed for any accusation under one ECIR. So, separate investigation by way of ECIR, is not barred. It is also to be taken note of that in subsequent FIR, new players have entered as accused persons and this petitioner was not even an accused in the First FIR as well as the Second FIR. So, for obvious reason, the petitioner has perhaps chosen not to challenge the maintainability of subsequent FIR. On these grounds also I find that challenge to ECIR-13 is without substance. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that institution of ECIR-13 could not be said to be evergreening of the jurisdiction by the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination operates at the stage of police inquiry and investigation as well. No doubt, it has been held that prohibitive sweep of Article 20(3) goes to the stage of police investigaiton, not commencing in Court only but the decision was rendered in the matter of powers of police during investigation under Section 161 of CrPC. If the authorities under the PMLA are not considered to be police officers, Nandini Satpathy (supra) woud not have application in cases where investigation is being carried by the officials of ED and statements are so recorded. Reliancd could be placed on decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the authorities under the PMLA are not police officers and for this reason, the statements recorded by the authorities under the PMLA is not hit by vice of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or for that matter Article 21 of the Constitution. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if the statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED Officials, then Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Evidence Act would come into play and confession of such person cannot be used against him. In the facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These issues came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to subscribe to the view that the recording of statement under Section 50 is hit by vice of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or for that matter Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner about illegality of the statements due to denial of safeguard available under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 164(4) CrPC or 'Miranda Rights' appears to be misconceived and has no legal basis. At the same time, it is also to be taken note of that the petitioner has been made accused in the Third FIR registered on 30.04.2025. Prior to that, the petitioner was not made accused and he was not charged with commission of any offence. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim any protection on the ground of self incrimination or making inculpatory statement. 47. So far as retraction of these statements by the petitioner is concerned, it has been contended by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent-ED that the same was not contemporaneous and was highly belated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not- (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the Director." Therefore, for the purpose of Section 13, the authorities have been vested with powers of civil court which exercises the power vested to it under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in the matter as provided under Section 50(1). At the same time, the Officers starting from Assistant Director to the highest level of Director of the Department of Enforcement have further been vested with powers to summon any person whose attendance may be considered necessary in order to record his evidence or to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as challenge to the issuance of summons dated 09.09.2025 and 15.09.2025, respectively, is concerned and all contentions in this regard are rejected. 50. So far the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner about petitioner being harassed by the respondent-ED by sending communication under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to the jurisdictional police for registration of FIR is concerned, the same is also not sustainable. A mandatory duty is cast upon the respondent-ED to share information and material collected by ED to the concerned law enforcement agencies if such information is for the purpose of enabling those authorities to discharge their statutory functions. It is obligatory on part of the ED to share information and material with the jurisdictional police and any person can set the law in motion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that if the information discloses the cognizable offences, the registration of the FIR is mandatory. 51. Similarly, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner about further investigation by the respondent-authorities which required permission from the court concerned is not of much significance. As the Hon'bl....