Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. It is thus argued that since FIR registered with regard to the Scheduled Offences which is pending investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), has not been interfered with by this Court, as such, no interference is called for with the ECIR registered by the respondents against the petitioners for commission of offence of money laundering punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. It is argued that ECIR is an internal document and is not a statutory document, and therefore, supply of ECIR to every person summoned in the case under Section 50 of PMLA is not mandatory. It is submitted that ECIR which is at the nascent stage and only summons have been issued cannot be quashed at such stage. The Enforcement Directorate must be given an opportunity to investigate the matter and reach the truth.

21. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I do not think it appropriate to relook into the issue vociferously agitated by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Question No. ii:

22. This issue too is well settled in "Vijay Madanlal Chowdhary and others Vs. Union of India and others", 2022 SCC Online SC 929, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in Paragraph 177 to 179, which for facility of reference are set at below: -

"177. Suffice it to observe that being a special legislation providing for special mechanism regarding inquiry/investigation of offence of money-laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the provisions of 1973 Code, in regard to registration of offence of money-laundering and more so being a complaint procedure prescribed under the 2002 Act. Further, the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act alone are competent to file such complaint. It is a different matter that the materials/evidence collected by the same authorities for the purpose of civil action of attachment of proceeds of crime and confiscation thereof may be used to prosecute the person involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime for offence of money- laundering. Considering the mechanism of inquiry/investigation for proceeding against the property (being proceeds of crime) under this Act by way of civil action (attachment and confiscation), there is no need to formally register an ECIR, unlike registration of an FIR by the jurisdictional police in respect of cognizable offence under the ordinary law. There is force in the stand taken by the ED that ECIR is an internal document created by the department before initiating penal action or prosecution against the person involved with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. Thus, ECIR is not a statutory document, nor there is any provision in 2002 Act requiring Authority referred to in Section 48 to record ECIR or to furnish copy thereof to the accused unlike Section 154 of the 1973 Code. The fact that such ECIR has not been recorded, does not come in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating civil action of attachment of property being proceeds of crime by following prescribed procedure in that regard.
179. Viewed thus, supply of ECIR in every case to person concerned is not mandatory. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is noticed that in some cases ED has furnished copy of ECIR to the person before filing of the complaint. That does not mean that in every case same procedure must be followed. It is enough, if ED at the time of arrest, contemporaneously discloses the grounds of such arrest to such person. Suffice it to observe that ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR which is mandatorily required to be recorded and supplied to the accused as per the provisions of 1973 Code. Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made mandatory, may defeat the purpose sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act including frustrating the attachment of property (proceeds of crime). Non-supply of ECIR, which is essentially an internal document of ED, cannot be cited as violation of constitutional right. Concededly, the person arrested, in terms of Section 19 of the 2002 Act, is contemporaneously made aware about the grounds of his arrest. This is compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is not unknown that at times FIR does not reveal all aspects of the offence in question. In several cases, even the names of persons actually involved in the commission of offence are not mentioned in the FIR and described as unknown accused. Even, the particulars as unfolded are not fully recorded in the FIR. Despite that, the accused named in any ordinary offence is able to apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail, in which proceeding, the police papers are normally perused by the concerned Court. On the same analogy, the argument of prejudice pressed into service by the petitioners for non-supply of ECIR deserves to be answered against the petitioners. For, the arrested person for offence of money-laundering is contemporaneously informed about the grounds of his arrest; and when produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to call upon the representative of ED to produce relevant record concerning the case of the accused before him and look into the same for answering the need for his continued detention. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the argument under consideration does not take the matter any further."

23. It is thus trite that recording of ECIR is not akin to the registration of FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ECIR is an internal document created by the Department before initiating penal action or prosecution against the person involved with a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The ECIR is not statutory document nor is there any provision in PMLA to necessarily record ECIR or furnish copy thereof to the accused unlike Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.