Statement Made Before Court Ultimately Matters Than Statement Under Section 50 PMLA : Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday (April 15) orally observed that there was a difference between the admissibility of a statement of an accused recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and its evidentiary value.

Justice Khanna observed that the evidence before the Court is the actual statement made by the person in the Court itself and not the Section 50 PMLA statement. Section 50 statement is not an evidence before the Court, the judge added.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing a petition filed by AAP MLA Amanattullah Khan challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant him anticipatory bail in a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the recruitment of the Delhi Wakf Board.

In the impugned order, the Delhi High Court had observed that "at the stage of adjudicating an anticipatory bail application, the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, will be relevant to be considered and appreciated."

During the hearing, Justice Khanna expressed reservations about the Delhi HC's observations regarding Section 50 PMLA.

"There are certain observations in the judgment, which goes to the merits of the matter. That should not have been there. (Observations) with regard to the credibility of Section 50 statements, [were] not required at this stage," Justice Khanna told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing the Enforcement Directorate.

"Section 50 statement is a piece of evidence. It is not the evidence before the Court. There is a difference between the two. Evidence before the Court is the actual statement made by the person in the court itself. I am not saying it (Section 50 statement) is not admissible. There is a difference between the two. It is admissible, like any document is admissible, the statement is admissible. But what ultimately matters is the statement made in the Court. Section 50 statement can be used to confront," Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

According to Section 50, an ED officer can require a person summoned in connection with a case to make statements regarding the case. In Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Section 50 PMLA was unconstitutional for violating the right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that statements recorded by ED officials under Section 50 are admissible in evidence.

As regards the plea of Amanatullah Khan, the Supreme Court ultimately refused to grant him anticipatory bail and asked him to appear before the ED for investigation. However, the Court recorded its reservation regarding the observations made by the Delhi HC on the merits of the case.

CASE Title: AMANATULLAH KHAN vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., SLP(Crl) No. 4837/2024