TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On completion of investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others. 3. On 13th February, 2020, the respondent no. 2 had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "ECIR") being No. ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 dated 13th February, 2020, against the petitioner and his family members by treating the charge sheet submitted by the CBI as the scheduled offence. During pendency of investigation, the Joint Director of the Respondent no. 2 had passed a Provisional Attachment Order (hereinafter referred to as "PAO") on 31st March, 2022 wherein the movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner were attached as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA"). 4. On 20th April, 2022, the respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint vide Original Complaint No. 1693 of 2022 before the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under Section 8 of the PMLA for confirmation of the PAO dated 31st March, 2022. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to her illness. 8. On 2nd September, 2026, the petitioner has also received similar notice with the direction to appear before the respondent no.3 on 8th September, 2026 and the petitioner has also prayed for time by an email dated 7th September, 2026. 9. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the respondents have issued the notices to the petitioner and his wife in connection with pending PMLA proceeding before the Learned Special Court being ML Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of KLZO/05/2020. He submits that the respondents have revived the investigation without any leave or order from the Special Court wherein the trial of the case against the petitioner is pending. 10. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that issuance of notice by the investigating agency during the pendency of trial and without any order from the trial Court or any leave from the Court is without any jurisdiction. He submits that the investigating agency already filed charge sheet after completion of investigation and the petitioner has filed an application for discharge and during hearing of the said discharge application, the investigating agency has issued notice which is beyond their jurisdiction. 11. Mr. Bhatta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner and his wife taking time before the Learned Special Court that they are appearing before the respondent authorities in connection with the notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate. 17. Mr. Chakraborty submits that as per Section 44(1) of the PMLA, there is no requirement of any order or leave from Court for further investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. He further referred to Section 71 of the PMLA and submits that the provisions of the PMLA are having overriding effect contain in any other law. He submits that the last proviso of Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not applicable under the PMLA. 18. Mr. Chakraborty in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Enforcement Directorate Vs. Debabrata Halder reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4095 and submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that an investigating agency is not required to pray for permission for further investigation of the case which is settled principle of law and the same is prerogative of the investigating agency. 19. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the scheduled offence. On completion of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate has filed prosecution complaint being ML Case No. 09 of 2022 before the Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1 Calcutta and subsequently the case is transferred to the Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 4/ED Court Calcutta. 24. The petitioner has filed an application before the Trial Court for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Judge by an order No. 47 dated 29th August, 2026, rejected the application filed by the petitioner and others and fixed the case for consideration of charge on 18th September, 2026. 25. On 27th August, 2026, the Enforcement Directorate has issued a notice under Section 50 of the PMLA to Smt. Alka Kejriwal with the direction to appear before the respondent no. 3 on 31st August, 2026 and on 2nd September, 2026, a notice under Section 50 of the PMLA was issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 3 on 8th September, 2026 to give evidence and to produce documents. 26. Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, reads as follows: "44. Offences triable by Special Courts. (1) Notwithstanding an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a "Special Court" designated under section 43." 27. Section 44(1) begins with non-abstante clause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 44 of the PMLA, has clearly recognized that further investigation is a statutory and continuing power of the authorized agency and that the Explanation is an enabling provision intended to ensure that no offender of money laundering escapes prosecution merely because a complaint has already been filed. 28. It is settled proposition of law that trial commences only after framing of charges and not prior thereto. In the present case, it is admitted position that charges have not yet framed, therefore, the trial has not commenced. The statutory recognition of further investigation even after filing of final report is w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laint filed before it." The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the Hon'ble Court has inclined to interfere with the said judgment and dismissed the SLP by an order dated 25th January, 2023. 32. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra) but in the said case the Hon'ble Court has considered only the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not Section 44 of the PMLA. 33. Similar issue was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupesh Kumar Baghel (supra) and in the said case the Hon'ble Court by considering the Judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), passed the following order: "2. It is a matter of record that, with respect to the interpretation of Section 44(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 1 in paragraph 263 has held as follows: "263. Clause (i) of the Explanation enunciates that the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence being tried under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any ....