Large scale money laundering affects economic interest of country: Bombay High Court rejects Anil Deshmukh plea

The Bombay High Court on Friday rejected the plea filed by former Home Minister of Maharashtra Anil Deshmukh assailing summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to a money laundering case..The Bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and SV Kotwal observed that “the statutory remedy of Applicant to approach the competent court under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is kept open to considered by the court on its own merits.”The Court also made pertinent observations regarding the interference of courts at the stage of investigation.“Large scale money laundering affects the economic interest of the country. Menace of money laundering has international ramifications...Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities, and one ought not to tread over the other sphere…It is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation as long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law, and it must be left to the investigating authority to decide the course of the investigation,” the Court said..The Bench also added that “the court cannot interfere at every stage of investigation and interrogation as it would affect the normal course of the investigation. The investigating agency must be permitted to proceed in its own lawful methodology and the procedure.”.ED had initiated the probe against Deshmukh and his associates after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an FIR following a Court-directed enquiry into allegations of corruption and misuse of his official position.It was ED's case that while Deshmukh was the Home Minister, he misused his position by directing dismissed Mumbai cop Sachin Waze to collect money to the tune of ₹4.7 crore from various restaurants and bars in Mumbai.It was claimed that Deshmukh had laundered the extorted money to a Nagpur-based trust which was controlled by his family members.ED issued five summons to Deshmukh, to which he responded seeking permission to attend the questioning through his authorised representatives. Deshmukh had not complied with any of the summons..Through his plea, Deshmukh sought for quashing of the summons and interim protection from coercive action apprehending arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).He also sought for permission to submit documents or statements to the ED through electronic mode, be represented through an “authorised agent,” and that the probe be entrusted to a special investigation team comprising ED officers from outside the Mumbai Zonal office..The Bench held that Deshmukh had failed to make out a case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned summons and for order directing ED to not take coercive steps against Deshmukh.“Like any other person apprehending arrest the Applicant can, if so advised, approach the competent court relief under section 438 of Cr.P.C. to be decided on its own merits,” the order said.The Court, however, permitted Deshmukh’s lawyer to remain present during the ED questioning at a visible distance, but beyond the audible range..Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri with Advocate Aniket Nikam, appearing for Deshmukh, made the following submissions:Non-supply of copy of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to Deshmukh was malicious;Deshmukh was a suspect and was entitled to protection from self-incrimination as guaranteed under Article 20(3);The manner in which summons have been issued, the case of legal and factual malice on the part of ED is explicit..Additional Solicitors General Aman Lekhi and Anil Singh with Advocate Shreeram Shirsat contended that the case had travelled much further after filing of the ECIR and that non-supply of ECIR could not be considered as a stand alone ground.He added that since Deshmukh was only a suspect, there was no question of application of Article 20(3)..In the 55-page order, the Court observed that there was nothing to show that the ongoing investigation was either beyond the ED's jurisdiction or illegal.“Since we have not found that issuance of summonses to the applicant is vitiated by malafide or that the officers of the ED are proceeding beyond their duty and when the discretion of the IO as to the personal presence of the person called for questioning is not being abused, there is no reason why we should dictate a different course of investigation in this case," the order stated..[Read order]