Accused Bound To Join Investigation Under PMLA But Cannot Be Compelled To Make Self-Incriminating Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the accused is duty-bound to cooperate in the investigation as per the summon issued under 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) but cannot be compelled to make an incriminating statement against himself in terms of the protection granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikas Suri said, "The...fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is available to be exercised as a shield by every accused in an offence punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which undoubtedly is a criminal law, promulgated to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

The Court was hearing a plea challenging summon issued under Section 50(2) of the PMLA, against one Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal who is an accused in FIR registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Panchkula (SVB), Haryana, under Sections 379, 414, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The summon was issued to appear before the Investigating Officer to give evidence in connection with the said investigation.

The sole ground of challenge raised by the senior counsels appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned summon is hit by the protective shield of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner-accused is protected against divulging any incriminating voluntary statement as a witness against himself.

The Court noted that the only apprehension of the petitioner is that once he has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR, as aforesaid, then he cannot be summoned as a witness to be compelled to make any incriminating statement against himself.

It was further contended by the senior counsel that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act statutorily makes it incumbent upon a witness to attend and state the truth failing which the witness can be prosecuted and punished. Thus it was urged that the compulsion of stating the truth, which may be self-incriminatory, runs contrary to the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on various Apex Court rulings.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "this Court may not enter into the prolixity of considering all the judicial verdicts relied upon by the petitioner since the fundamental right of an accused not to be compelled to make self incriminatory statement available under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is all pervading and omnipresent qua every kind of criminal prosecution including PMLA."

Perusing Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the Court said, "the said fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is available to be exercised as a shield by every accused in an offence punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which undoubtedly is a criminal law, promulgated to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

It further noted that it is not disputed that the petitioner is an accused as per the FIR where the offence is punishable under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is one of the scheduled offences under PMLA.

It seems that the petitioner has been summoned to join the investigation by the police vide impugned summon...issued under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 and therefore, the petitioner is an accused under the PMLA, it added.

In light of the above, the Court directed that, "though it is incumbent upon the petitioner to cooperate in the investigation in terms of the summons issued under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 but the Investigating Agency, so long as the petitioner is an accused in the said offence, cannot compel him or his authorized agent to make incriminating statement against himself in terms of the protection granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India."

Consequently, the plea was disposed of.

Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Ms. Meghna Malik, Central Government Counsel for respondent No.4-ED.

Title: Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 170

Click here to read/download the order