Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjay Basu vs Union Of India And Anr on 15 March, 2023
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
2 15.3.2023
S.G
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WPA 6184 of 2023
Sanjay Basu
Vs.
Union of India and Anr.
Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Debal Banerjee, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly
Mr. Debasish Roy
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee
Mr. Amit Nag
Mr. P. Agarwal
Mr. S. Mohanty
Mr. P. K. Ray
Mr. K. Agarwal ... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya
Mr. Samrat Goswami .... For the Respondent no. 2.
Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, Additional Solicitor General Mr. Arun Kumar Maity Ms. M. Datta .... For the U.O.I. The petitioner is a learned advocate practising in this court. Between 2014 and 2017 he had been engaged to do legal work for a company Pincon Spirits Limited, now in liquidation.
At the time of admission of the writ application, Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, learned Deputy Solicitor General raised the point of jurisdiction or determination of this court to take up this matter. He submitted that the cause of action in this writ application arose from the diverse summons issued under Section 50(2) of The Prevention of 2 Money-Laundering Act, 2002 against the writ petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate on an investigation into money laundering under Section 3 of the said Act. He had been summoned in connection with his receipt of a sum of Rs.83,25,000/- from the Pincon Spirits Limited which subsequently went into liquidation. He submitted that this investigation by the Enforcement Directorate had nothing to do with any ponzi matter.
He added that the determination to hear "all matters arising out of the ponzi scheme" is vested in this court. Since this case did not arise out of any ponzi scam, this court had no determination. The remedy of the petitioner was under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under Group-IX of the rules of our court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ had to be preferred before a learned single judge. Learned additional Solicitor General reiterated the submission of Mr. Trivedi.
Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner drew our attention to the press release dated 3rd March, 2023 issued by the Directorate of the Enforcement. It is in the following terms :
"Directorate of Enforcement(ED) has conducted searches on 01.03.2023 at 15 premises consisting of residences and offices at various locations in Kolkata, Siliguri, Howrah and Agra against two chit fund companies i.e. Pincon Group and Tower Infotech Ltd. under PMLA, 2002.
Ed had recorded money laundering case against Tower Infotech Ltd. and Pincon Group on the basis of FIRs registered by CBI and West Bengal Police for misappropriating Rs. 156 crore and 638 crore respectively collected from its investors.
The above chit fund companies have collected money from public by luring them with attractive schemes and offering very high rates of interest. These two companies have cheated 3 the public by not returning the money.
Searches were carried out at the residences of directors of Pincon Group and Tower Group which includes Manoranjan Roy, Hari Singh and beneficiaries Subharti Banerjee, Sanjay Basu & Mina Dey and Ramendu Chattopadhyay and beneficiaries of Eden Infraprojects Pvt ltd, its directors Indrajit De & Sachchidanand Rai, Indian Structural Engineering Company Pvt Ltd and Ashish Wheels Ltd.
As a result of search, incriminating documents, digital evidence consisting of mobile phones and laptops and cash of Rs.1.27 crore were seized.
Further investigation is in progress. "
Mr. Mitra argued that it was evident from this document that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate was in connection with a ponzi scam in which Pincon was allegedly involved To this Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi replied that the impugned investigation ECIR/KLZO-1/29/2021 was separate and had got nothing to do with the ponzi scam with which the Pincon Group was allegedly involved.
On perusal of the press release, we are prima facie satisfied that the investigation against the petitioner has got connection with the alleged ponzi scam with which the Pincon Group was allegedly involved. Hence prima facie we have the determination to hear the writ. However, we shall make a final ruling on the issue on production of records concerning the case by the Enforcement Directorate. We direct the Enforcement Directorate to produce the records of this case on the next date of hearing.
We are not staying the investigation.
4Investigation may continue.
In response to the summons under Section 50(2) of the said Act, the petitioner has attended the office of the Enforcement Directorate several times. His office and residence have also been searched. For the time being there is no need of his being further summoned to the office of the Enforcement Directorate or his house and office being searched.
Till further orders, the petitioner shall not be required to attend the office of the Enforcement Directorate further to any summons nor any search or seizure in the residence or in the office premises of the petitioner shall be carried out without the leave of the court.
List this application at the top on 20th March, 2023.
Learned Additional Solicitor General prays for stay of the operation of this order, which is considered and refused.
(I.P. Mukerji, J.) (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)