In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) supersedes the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when it comes to procedures for summoning individuals. This decision came while dismissing the appeals of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee, who had challenged the Enforcement Directorate’s summons in a coal scam case, arguing they should only be summoned in Kolkata, not New Delhi.
The Banerjees contended that the CrPC, which prevents women from being summoned outside their place of residence under Section 160, should govern the procedure. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Section 50 of the PMLA provides its own rules for summoning, unaffected by the CrPC.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, referenced Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA, which give the Act overriding authority in cases of conflicting procedures with other laws, including the CrPC. The Court underscored that the PMLA’s provisions, being more comprehensive and gender-neutral, take precedence in cases involving money laundering.
The Court highlighted key differences between the PMLA and CrPC, noting that PMLA’s summoning process applies universally, without gender-based limitations, and that inquiries under Section 50 of PMLA differ from CrPC investigations. Additionally, statements made under PMLA are admissible in court, unlike those under CrPC, which are more limited in scope.
By affirming that PMLA prevails over CrPC, the Court also made it clear that non-compliance with PMLA summons would constitute a criminal offense, punishable under the Indian Penal Code. As a result, the summons issued by the Delhi Court stands firm, underscoring the Enforcement Directorate’s power to summon individuals anywhere, regardless of CrPC constraints.
