Facts of the Case

This is a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) matter and does not involve GST. The petitioner, Abhishek Banerjee, filed a revisional application under Section 482 CrPC challenging proceedings in ECIR/KLZO-II/19/2022 registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, along with summons dated 08.06.2023 issued under Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA, in connection with what has been referred to as the 'Teachers Recruitment Scam' investigation.

The petitioner's application sought two reliefs: quashing of the ECIR itself, and quashing of the summons dated 08.06.2023. The matter had a complex procedural history, including a Supreme Court order permitting the petitioner to pursue remedies under Section 482 CrPC, and a subsequent administrative reassignment of the case within the Calcutta High Court following objections raised by the ED regarding the Court's authority to hear the matter — objections the ED later chose not to press before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner's counsel also placed on record a series of instances (2019 to 2023) in which he and his family members were allegedly subjected to inconvenience by central investigating agencies, arguing these reflected a pattern of harassment unconnected to any genuine 'proceeds of crime' under the PMLA.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the ECIR registered against the petitioner should be quashed at this stage of investigation.
  2. Whether the summons dated 08.06.2023 issued under Section 50 of the PMLA should be quashed.
  3. What protection, if any, should be extended to the petitioner pending further investigation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • There was no rational connection between the petitioner's public speech, a co-accused's statement, and any 'proceeds of crime' as defined under the PMLA.
  • The petitioner and his family had faced a pattern of alleged harassment by central investigating agencies over several years, suggesting a political motive rather than a genuine money-laundering investigation.
  • The ECIR and summons should accordingly be quashed.

Respondent's (ED's) Arguments

  • The summons under Section 50 of the PMLA was issued strictly in relation to the Teachers Recruitment Scam investigation.
  • The investigation was still in progress, and materials — including the statement of a co-accused in custody, and orders of another Bench directing production of company records relating to entities under scrutiny — showed the matter required continued investigation, not premature interference.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the investigation into the Teachers Recruitment Scam was still in progress, and that the petitioner's challenge to the ECIR was premature at the stage it was filed, particularly since the petitioner had in the interim attended the ED's office pursuant to summons, and search and seizure had been carried out at an office where he was an ex-director and present CEO.
  • Noting that the only material produced by the ED before it was the statement of a co-accused, the Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner by the ED without strict adherence to Section 19 of the PMLA (as explained by the Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. State), which requires a recorded 'reason to believe' before arrest.
  • On the specific prayer for quashing the ECIR, the Court held that the stage at which the petitioner had approached the Court was premature compared to the present stage of investigation, and declined to interfere with it.
  • The revisional application was accordingly disposed of with these observations, and any connected pending applications were also disposed of.

Important Clarification

The Court neither quashed the ECIR nor made any finding on the truth or falsity of the underlying allegations — it declined to quash the proceedings as premature, while giving the petitioner the limited protection that no coercive action (such as arrest) could be taken without strict compliance with the safeguards in Section 19 of the PMLA. This is a PMLA procedural order with no connection to GST law.

Sections Involved

  • Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
  • Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (power to summon)
  • Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (power to arrest)
  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without quashing the ECIR/summons — the petitioner's challenge was found premature and dismissed on that specific prayer, though the Court granted the limited protection that no coercive steps could be taken without compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA.

Case Details

Court: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Case No.: C.R.R. 2653 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
Date of Judgment: 22.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.