BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses Rana Ayyub challenge to Ghaziabad court summons against her in PMLA case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by journalist Rana Ayyub challenging the jurisdiction of a Ghaziabad court that commenced proceedings against her in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case (Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement)..A bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala granted liberty to Ayyub to raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial court itself. " ... we are of the view that the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence. Hence, this question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out.".The Supreme Court had last week reserved its verdict in the journalist's plea.Ayyub was summoned by a trial court in Ghaziabad in relation to a prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED)..Ayyub moved the apex court contending that the Uttar Pradesh court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter since the complaint arose in Mumbai and the Delhi Zonal Office of ED was investigating the matter.The Supreme Court at the outset noted that the following questions arose in the matter: Whether the trial of the offence of money-laundering should follow the trial of the scheduled/predicate offence or vice versa?Whether the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No.1, Ghaziabad, can be said to have exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction, even though the offence alleged, was not committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court?It was pointed out that as per the PMLA, the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) is empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the same." ... the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering and not vice versa", the top court explains. On the first question, the top court observed that if the scheduled offence is taken cognisance of by any other judicial forum, courts can commit the same after necessary applications by the concerned authorities.On the second question, the judges began by stating that in money-laundering cases," ... the area in which the place of acquisition of the proceeds of crime is located or the place of keeping it in possession is located or the place in which it is concealed is located or the place in which it is used is located, will be the area in which the offence has been committed."Taking note of the fact that the donations in question were received from different parts of the country online, the Court said,"Therefore, the question of territorial jurisdiction in this case requires an enquiry into a question of fact as to the place where the alleged proceeds of crime were (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii) acquired; or (iv) used. This question of fact will actually depend upon the evidence that unfolds before the Trial Court.".The ED had initiated a money laundering investigation on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) registered in September 2021 by the Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Amendment Act and the Black Money Act against Ayyub.The FIR alleged that she illegally acquired funds from the general public in the name of charity by launching fundraiser campaigns on online crowd funding platform Ketto.It was also alleged that Ayyub received foreign contributions without registration under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)..According to the ED, investigation revealed that Ayyub launched three fundraiser campaigns and collected funds totalling ₹2.69 crore.These included:1. Raising funds for slum-dwellers & farmers;2. Funds for relief work for Assam, Bihar and Maharashtra;3. Funds to help those impacted by COVID-19 in India.The ED stated that the funds raised were received in her father and sister's accounts, and were subsequently transferred to her personal accounts. Further, she allegedly utilised these funds to create a fixed deposit of ₹50 lakh for herself and transferred another ₹50 lakh to a new bank account.The investigation was also stated to have revealed that only about ₹29 lakh was used for relief work. Subsequently, a bank balance of ₹1.7 crore was attached by the agency on February 4, 2022..Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for Ayyub. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the ED. [Read judgment]