Suman Chattopadhyay Vs Enforcement Directorate (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner challenged an order dated 3 November 2022 passed by the CBI Court, Bichar Bhavan, in a money laundering case initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the petitioner’s prayer seeking directions that certain corporate accused be properly represented, holding that the issue could be considered at a later stage and not at the stage of supply of documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The petitioner was arraigned as accused no. 22 in the complaint and was also shown as the representative of two corporate accused entities, described as being represented by him in his capacity as director. The petitioner contended that both companies were separate and independent juristic persons, distinct from their directors and shareholders. According to him, a company cannot be implicated in a criminal complaint by depicting representation through a specific individual unless the company itself authorises such representation. He further asserted that he had no association with one of the companies and had resigned from the other prior to issuance of summons, and therefore could not be compelled to represent either company during trial.
