PMLA Accused Can’t Claim Shelter Behind VC Rules To Join Investigations Via Digital Mechanism: Delhi High Court Rejects Augusta Westland Accused’s Plea
The Delhi High Court noted that it has become a disturbing trend in recent times to report even some most innocuous remark that may be made by the Court during the case hearings, which may or may not even be connected with the proceedings, merely to create sensation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot claim shelter behind the Video Conferencing (VC) Rules to assert that he can join investigations through a digital mechanism.
The Court held thus in an Application filed by the counsel under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on behalf of the accused for appropriate action.
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “V.C. rules do not confer an inherent right upon an accused who has deliberately evaded the process to dictate the terms of their appearance. The Court’s power to compel attendance is paramount, and the Petitioner cannot be allowed to claim shelter behind V.C. to assert that he can join investigations through this digital mechanism.”
The Bench said that the accused cannot take a shelter behind VC Rules to assert that he can claim to join investigations through VC.
Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa and Tanvir Ahmed Mir represented the Petitioner, while ASG S.V. Raju represented the Respondent.
Case Background
The Petitioner-accused was a world-renowned businessman and he provided employment of thousands of people for the last many decades. In 2014, an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) was registered, alleging corruption and the payment of bribes in the procurement of Augusta Westland Helicopters from an Italian Company. Certain persons were arrested in this connection. The accused asserted that he was never associated with such transactions or any transaction concerning defence equipment/agreements at any point of time, and therefore, he is not even required to be investigated in the matter. In 2016, he was served with summons, asking him to join the investigation.
After a gap of more than 2 years, another summons was issued to him, seeking certain details/documents. Thereafter, another summons was issued and the Petitioner informed about his inability to travel because of his health and other legal proceedings. He conveyed his willingness to join the investigation through VC and to extend his cooperation in the best possible manner. In 2020, he came to know that the Respondent-Enforcement Directorate (ED) had got NBWs (Non-Bailable Warrants) issued against him by allegedly concealing material facts and playing fraud upon the Court. His Application for cancellation and recall was dismissed and this was under challenge before the High Court. The Petitioner also alleged defamatory media reports targeting the professional reputation and dignity of Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, emphasised, “… Media Houses owe an absolute responsibility to conduct sensible reporting. It cannot be overstated that media reports have a widespread impact on the general public, which may include some legal professionals. The majority of the public may not be aware of legal nuances and depend solely on media reports to know, about events happening in the country and the proceedings taking place in the Court. The Media has the absolute responsibility for accuracy and fairness in media reporting.”
The Court remarked that it has become a disturbing trend in recent times to report even some most innocuous remark that may be made by the Court during the case hearings, which may or may not even be connected with the proceedings, merely to create sensation.
“Such reporting of the court proceedings, which may generate curiosity of public to read with more interest, is accepted without realizing that such remarks are not part of the proceedings or do not pertain to the merits of the case, and need no prominence or even reporting”, it added.
The Court said that it is expected that the Media houses which are of great repute, would themselves consider whether such reporting should be allowed to continue on their media Portals and no further directions are required.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Court noted, “Coercive measures like issuing an NBW must serve to secure the presence of the accused and the order must denote the objective satisfaction of the Trial Court. Courts are cautioned that, as a general rule, at the first and second instance they must refrain from issuing NBWs, preferring a summons or bailable warrant if sufficient to secure appearance.”
The Court reiterated that NBWs should not be issued where the investigative purpose is merely procedural or primarily aimed at forcing a confession.
“However, in the instant case, the NBW is essential for legally compelling the custodial interrogation of the accused, which the investigating agency deems indispensable to uncover the complex money trail”, it said.
The Court observed that V.C has been introduced to facilitate the progress of trial and to cause minimum inconvenience to the witnesses, who otherwise are unable to travel, however, it does not give an inherent right to the Petitioner to deny appearing in person even though his presence is mandatorily required.
“The physical presence of the accused is necessitated to ensure immediate, effective, and legally valid responses. This is practically impossible to conduct comprehensively through V.C. where the documents cannot be verified and tendered instantly”, it further noted.
The Court also remarked that the accused cannot be permitted to dictate the terms of investigation, like insisting on video conferencing in the instant case, when the complexity of the facts requires a detailed confrontation with voluminous documents, a process rightly held by the Trial Court to be difficult to conduct effectively via video conference.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the Petitioner’s case is not one of simple non-cooperation, but of demonstrated wilful evasion and suspected flight.
“It may be mentioned that the Petitioner has asserted that he or his family members have not applied for citizenship of any other country, though the Respondent has contended that he had applied for the citizenship of Dominican Republic”, it added.
The Court noted that the investigating agency is entitled to seek coercive measures against any accused based on their individual conduct, the incriminating material recovered against them, and the necessity of their custodial confrontation which is sufficient to distinguish his case from others, thereby neutralizing the plea of discrimination.
“The Petitioner’s fear that he would “necessarily be arrested” is a misplaced apprehension. The Petitioner has ample safeguards and provisions under the law to seek protection, once he subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. … In the totality of circumstances, it is hereby held that there is no ground for cancellation of the open NBW issued by the ACMM”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title- Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9687)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa, Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Advocates Yudhister Singh, Prabhav Ralli, Saud Khan, Shiv Kapoor, and Pulkit Shree.
Respondent: ASG S.V. Raju, Panel Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Advocates Kanishk Maurya, and Kunal Kochar.
