ED Does Not Have 'All India Jurisdiction': Sr Adv Kapil Sibal Argues In Delhi High Court for Quashing Summons Issued To TMC's Abhishek Banerjee

[ABS News Service/28.01.2022]

The Delhi High Court on Friday heard Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife in their plea seeking quashing of summons issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.

The duo, permanent residents of Kolkata, were directed to appear before ED for interrogation in Delhi. They had moved the High Court in September last year, claiming that that the agency cannot assume investigative powers in respect of allegations of money laundering arising in the scheduled offence as the same could only have been investigated into by the concerned zonal office at Kolkata.

On Friday, Sibal argued before Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar that only the National Investigating Agency has 'All India jurisdiction'.

He pointed out that the police authorities are bound to their own jurisdictions under Section 160 (Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses) of CrPC. Similarly, it was submitted, ED has zonal and regional jurisdiction as described under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA'). In this regard, he referred to Section 65 of PMLA which states that provisions of CrPC are to apply.

Reliance was placed on Asmita Agarwal v. Enforcement Directorate, where it was held that in the absence of a specific provision in the special enactment, the investigation procedure under CrPC shall apply.

"The fact of the matter is that once the special legislation or enactment like FERA is silent with regard to certain procedure like where to investigate a woman, one cannot but have to have recourse to the code. Admittedly FERA is silent in this respect regarding investigation a woman or a minor under the FERA, therefore, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 160 of the code would apply in the facts of this case," the Delhi High Court had held in Asmita Agarwal (supra).

ED on the other hand has argued that the case is being probed by its Headquarter Investigative Unit which has All India jurisdiction.

ASG S V Raju representing the agency argued that the ED has followed the prescribe procedure for summoning the petitioners for interrogation. He submitted that ED officials are not police officers and hence, Section 160 of CrPC is not applicable in the case.

He also submitted that Banerjee is a Member of Parliament and has a residence in Delhi. Hence also, the case is liable to be dismissed.

The CBI had registered an FIR in respect to alleged offences of illegal mining and theft of coal from the leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Ltd committed in the state of West Bengal by certain individuals. Pursuant to this, ED has registered an ECIR in the Head Investigative Unit located in New Delhi.

Other Advocates present in this case are - Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also representing ED. Advocate Ajay Digpaul CGSC along with Advocate Kamal R. Digpaul.

The matter is now listed on 28 January 2022.

Case Title: Rujira Banerjee v Enforcement Directorate, WP (Crl) 1808/2021 and connected matters.