No Violation Of Natural Justice Principles If Accused Not Given Advance Copy Of S. 50 PMLA Application: Allahabad HC

For context, under Section 50 of the PMLA, an ED officer is authorised to summon a person and request information from him regarding the case under the 2002 Act. It requires the people summoned to provide honest and correct information.

In this case further investigation is still ongoing in the Shine City Scam case. Since the applicant-accused is in jail, the ED approached the Special PMLA Court in Lucknow with an application seeking permission to confront the applicant in Jail regarding the material/evidence collected by it.

The application was allowed, and thus, the applicant moved the HC, challenging the said order.

Advocate Purnendu Chakravarty, appearing for the accused, pleaded that the applicant could not have been interrogated any further once the chargesheet had been filed after conducting the investigation.

It was also argued that an advance copy of the application seeking permission to record the statement of the applicant ought to have been supplied to him for taking legal counsel.

It was apprised to the bench that though a recall application against the impugned order was filed, the Trial Court rejected it.

Per contra, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, Advocate Kuldeep Srivastava, argued that specific evidence was found during further investigation against the applicant which was necessary to be shown to the applicant.

The High Court noted that the Trial Court had recorded that the fraud ran in thousands of crores, and the applicant had an opportunity to admit or deny any evidence that was placed before him.

Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as a matter of 'abundant precaution ', a copy of the application may have been served to the applicant as an “abundant precaution,” and non-service does not violate principles of natural justice.

“…non providing the advance copy of the application dated 08.01.2025 to the present applicant would not violate his principles of natural justice inasmuch as he could have not opposed such application…further investigation is going on in an issue in question and some material / evidence is said to have been collected by the Investigating Agency, which is/ are related to the present applicant, therefore, such material or evidence must be confronted with the present applicant and his statement should be recorded on that point,” the bench observed.

However, balancing equity, the Court directed that the applicant's statement be recorded in the Room of the Superintendent of Jail or Jailer of the Jail, Lucknow, in the presence of his legal counsel to enable him to take assistance.

Case Title: Udhaw Singh vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 850 of 2025]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55

Click Here To Read/Download order