Read Time: 05 minutes

The Bombay High Court has rejected the claim of former Minister Anil Deshmukh that the issuance of summons to him by the Enforcement Directorate was an abuse of power.

A divisional bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Saang V Kotwal noted that "There is no jurisdictional error in the issuance of summonses as they have been issued by the officers duly authorized under the PMLA."

Former Minister and National Congress Party leader Anil Vasant Deshmukhh had approached the Bombay HC challenging the summons issued by the ED under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The ED had initiated a probe against Deshmukh and his associates after the CBI lodged an FIR against the NCP leader on April 21, 2021, on charges of corruption and misuse of his official position.

However, the Court noted that "The Applicant (Deshmukh), without any valid reason, has refused to cooperate with the investigation by not attending the summonses issued by the authorities."

The bench also rejected the contention of Deshmukh that the case registered against him under PMLA are under political vendetta stating "The applicant has failed to establish the case of legal and factual malice on the part of the respondent/directorate in proceeding with the investigation in question."

For the purpose of clarification, the bench said that "The object and purpose of PMLA show that it not only confers powers on the authority to investigate the offence of money laundering but a duty to investigate it in the larger public interest."

The bench penned that they are not inclined to interfere while stating that to recapitulate, under the provisions of PMLA, the issuance of summons is part of the investigation.

"The High Courts would not interfere and interdict a lawful investigation under its powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless exceptional circumstances as per the settled law are present. None of these grounds exists in the present case," the Court added.

The bench while refusing the relief sought said, "The Applicant has failed to establish the case of legal and factual malice on the part of the RespondentDirectorate in proceeding with the investigation in question."

However, the Court has allowed the prayer seeking the presence of Lawyer at a visible distance during questioning whereas, rejected the relief seeking CCTV recording of the questioning stating that "as regards the part of prayer regarding audio/ video-graphing of CCTV camera is concerned, the same is not shown to fall under any of the provisions of the PMLA. As regards the prayer of the presence of the Applicant's lawyer at a visible distance (beyond audible range) during questioning, the same is justified."