Menka Gambhir Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court considered a petition seeking relief against a summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The summons required the petitioner to appear before the ED in Delhi on 05.06.2022 in connection with an ongoing investigation relating to ECIR/17/HIU/2020.
Background of the Case
The summons related to an investigation into an alleged coal theft case in West Bengal involving Anup Majhi, a resident of West Bengal. The petitioner, who also resides in Kolkata, contended that two other persons connected with the same ECIR had recently obtained orders from the Supreme Court permitting the investigation to continue in Kolkata instead of Delhi.
Contentions of the Parties
The ED opposed the relief, arguing that the petitioner could not rely on Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the PMLA, by virtue of Sections 65 and 71, overrides other laws. The petitioner, however, did not seek quashing of the summons but only requested that questioning be conducted in Kolkata instead of Delhi.
Court’s Findings
The Court clarified that the issue was not whether Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. applied, but whether the petitioner should be required to appear in Delhi or Kolkata. It found the ED’s contention that confidential documents were available only in Delhi to be unconvincing. The Court observed that the alleged offence and the entire cause of action arose in West Bengal, the petitioner resided in Kolkata, and there was no reason why the required documents could not be transmitted to the ED’s Kolkata Zonal Office.
