The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a petition by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Kumar Baghel, in which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) powers were questioned for “further investigation” and kept filing charge sheets under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymlya Bagchi said that the provision has procedural security measures, as held in the historic decision of the apex court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (2022), which maintains the PMLA provisions and left it open to Bagel or any other petitioner to challenge any security of Ed.
While disposing of Bagel’s petition, the bench said, “There is no benefit that if the ED/Authority has worked contrary to the above principles in the VMC case, the victims, including the petitioner, can contact the appropriate platform or the High Court.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Baghel, said that the petition has challenged Section 44 of the PMLA, besides other provisions of the Anti-Mani Laundering Act, to be very wider, it allows persons who arrest Ed to be very widespread, and forcing them to stop the freedom of citizens.
He contacted the court while arresting his son in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam after his son was arrested by Ed last month.
The bench said, “An investigation is never against an accused. It is against a crime. So an accused, in the case of investigation, may be accidental.” The court said that the provision for further investigation is provided under the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC), which recognizes the power available with the investigating agency to secure the end of justice and travel to finding the truth.
The court said, “Further investigation also to find out whether the accused is really guilty for the benefit of the accused.”
Sibal questioned such power under Section 44 of the PMLA as he noticed that ED officers are not a police officer. He questioned that PMLA is a special law, all procedural security measures under CRPC are not implemented to the accused arrested by Ed.
The court refused to entertain Baghel’s petition, saying, “If there is abuse by the ED, it does not weaken the law. In personal matters, violation of the process does not mean that the law does not mean a constitutional defect in the law. In a case where the ED is working contrary to, let the person concerned go to the court.”
Baghel’s petition filed through advocate Vipin Nair said, “The PMLA does not provide concrete powers of ‘further investigation’ on the Ed officials. Section 44 of the Act, which belongs to the natural aspects related to chapters and crimes of chapter of chapter only of the chapter of the special court chapter.”
It further said, “The ED is illegally and arbitrarily practicing its power, despite no express rights under the PMLA, in many cases ‘further investigations’ and are filing complaints of incomplete or pieces -prosecution, which resulted in a serious violation of fundamental rights under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
