Advocate of accused cannot be present during interrogation under PMLA: Calcutta High Court

Advocate of accused cannot be present during interrogation under PMLA: Calcutta High Court

Modifies relevant portion of the impugned order and directs the Enforcement Directorate to keep an eye on the accused while in custody

The Calcutta High Court has held that an advocate of the accused cannot be present during the interrogation process under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Since the magistrate allowed this to happen, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed a criminal revision against it.

The Park Street Branch of the Federal Bank had lodged an FIR against an individual Aamir Khan under the Indian Penal Code allegedly for cheating, criminal misappropriation of funds, and forgery. A similar complaint was lodged against Khan by two private complainants at Hare Street Police Station.

During the investigation, it was ascertained that Khan and his associates committed criminal misappropriation of a huge amount of money by introducing false and forged online gaming apps. They insisted users of the apps spread information about the games to others by alluring and enticing them with high monetary returns.

The money earned was used in cryptocurrency and bitcoins purchased through various accounts, which violated PMLA provisions.

While searching Khan's residential premises, the ED recovered Rs.1.6 crores in cash. His statement was recorded under PMLA admitting his involvement in the fake online gaming process. It meant the accumulation of money through criminal misappropriation and cheating users of the apps and the accused was arrested.

However, it troubled the ED that by passing the impugned order, the magistrate permitted the advocate of the accused to remain present at the time of the interrogation by the investigating officer.

The petitioner argued that the magistrate failed to appreciate the difference between the accused person's entitlement to meet an advocate of his choice, and the advocate being present during the interrogation of his client.

The bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed that the presence of the advocate for the accused during the interrogation would reveal the course and direction of the investigation to others. Also, the investigating officer would not be able to interrogate the accused freely.

While allowing the criminal revision of the ED, the court directed the petitioner to serve further notice upon the accused. It had to be sent via registered speed post with acknowledgment due within the next working day and an affidavit filed within seven days.

The bench modified the relevant portion of the impugned order directing the ED to medically check upon the accused every 48 hours during his detention.