The Allahabad High Court made it clear that not providing the advance copy of the application filed by the Director of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the accused would not violate principles of natural justice since he could have not opposed such application.

The applicant had filed an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order of the Special Judge passed in a Case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that in view of Section 44 of PMLA, 2002 the subsequent complaint may be filed and in view of Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 such statement of the present applicant may be recorded but as an abundant precaution a copy of the application dated 08.01.2025 should have been given to the present applicant.”

Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty represented the Applicant while Advocate Rohit Tripathi represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

An application was filed by the Director of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) on January 8, 2025, and the same was allowed the same day. Permission was given to the Investigating Agency to confront the applicant in Jail in respect of the material/evidence collected during further investigation in respect of other accused persons by recording statements.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicant that a charge sheet had been filed against him after the completion of the investigation, therefore, the statement of the present applicant should have not been recorded during the further investigation of other persons. It was contended that the mandate of section 50(3) is that before recording the statement of an accused person he should be summoned and this exercise was not undertaken in this case since ED’s application had been allowed without providing an advance copy to the present applicant or his counsel.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that as per Section 44 of PMLA, 2002 the subsequent complaint may be filed and given Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 such statement of the present applicant may be recorded but as an abundant precaution a copy of the application should have been given to the present applicant. Noting that further investigation is going on in an issue in question and some material/evidence is said to have been collected by the Investigating Agency, which is/ are related to the present applicant, the Bench stated that such material or evidence must be confronted with the present applicant and his statement should be recorded on that point.

The Bench said, “In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, non-providing the advance copy of the application dated 08.01.2025 to the present applicant would not violate his principles of natural justice inasmuch as he could have not opposed such application…” However, to balance the equity and protect the rights of the present applicant of a fair trial, the Bench ordered that the statement of the present applicant would be recorded in the Room of the Superintendent of Jail or Jailer of the Jail, Lucknow in the presence of his counsel so that he could take proper assistance from his counsel. The Superintendent of Jail, Lucknow has been ordered to make proper arrangements to that effect so that the aforesaid statement can be recorded smoothly without any pressure.

Disposing of the Petition, the Bench added, “The aforesaid statement would be recorded on 06.02.2025 at about 10:30 a.m.. It is needless to say that no interruption of any kind whatsoever would be done from either side.”

Cause Title: Udhaw Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. (Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC-LKO:6821)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon

Opposite Party: Advocate Rohit Tripathi

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Rajesh Singh ChauhanPrevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.