The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Senior Advocate Nalini Chidambaram for quashing a summons by Enforcement Directorate (ED) under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 requiring her personal appearance as a witness in the Saradha Chit Fund scam.
The summons in question had been issued by the ED in September 2016. In the petition, it was argued that the ED’s powers were subject to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Section 160 provides inter alia that a woman cannot be required to attend an investigation at any place other than the place in which she resides.
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran appeared on behalf of Nalini Chidambaram contended that Chidambaram’s personal presence was not required in the case and that repeated insistence on her personal appearance before the ED amounted to harassment.
Justice S M Subramaniam noted that the PMLA, being a special statute, would have an overriding effect over the general provisions provided in the CrPC.
The Court dismissed the petition with a direction that the ED issue the fresh summons for continuing the investigation in accordance with law.
“The writ petitioner, being a Senior Advocate and having active and lucrative practice in various High Courts and before the Supreme Court of India, cannot say that she is not capable of personally appearing before the authorities concerned for the purpose of investigation. More-so, this Court expects that the respected Senior Advocate like the writ petitioner, should not shy away from co-operating for an effective investigation of such offences committed under the provisions of the “PMLA“. The offences of money laundering is affecting the economic growth of our great Nation. The magnitude of the alleged money laundering in the present case is running to several thousand crores and therefore, certainly it is required for the persons like the writ petitioner, who is of hight in status, has to co-operate and participate in the investigation process and, so that the entire scenario leading to various facts can be ascertained by the authorities for the purpose of effective prosecution of cases before the Competent Court of Law.”
“If there are sufficient materials to proceed against the writ petitioner and if the investigating authorities have enough materials to proceed against a person in a manner known to law and by adhering to the provisions of law, then they are duty-bound to do so as the law so warrants. Thus, these are all the decisions to be taken only after completing an effective investigation,” the judge said and directed the ED to issue fresh summons to Ms Chidambaram.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
