Money-laundering investigations rarely end when the prosecution complaint is filed. Attachment proceedings continue, new material surfaces, and the Enforcement Directorate issues fresh summonses under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — sometimes years into the trial court proceedings. Can it? A writ petition before the Calcutta High Court squarely raised the objection that post-complaint summonses amount to investigation without the special court’s leave. The answer, in Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, was that the statute itself keeps the investigative channel open.
The chronology
The underlying allegations are old: a CBI charge sheet of 2013 concerning fraud and corruption. The ED registered its money-laundering case in February 2020 and, in due course, filed a prosecution complaint before the special court. The petitioner applied for discharge. Then, on 27 August and 2 September 2026, came fresh Section 50 summonses to the petitioner and his wife for further investigation. The writ petition contended that with the complaint filed and the matter before the special court, the ED could not reopen the investigative channel without judicial permission.
The statutory answer
Justice Krishna Rao located the answer in the architecture of the PMLA itself. The Explanation to Section 44(1) contemplates that the ED may file subsequent, supplementary complaints based on further evidence — language that presupposes a continuing power to gather that evidence. The Court characterised further investigation as a statutory and continuing power that does not require prior permission of the court, drawing on the familiar parallel of Section 173(8) CrPC — now reflected in Section 193 of the BNSS, 2023 — under which police further investigation survives the filing of a charge sheet. And because a trial commences only upon the framing of charges, investigation during the pre-charge interregnum does not collide with the trial at all. The writ petition was dismissed.
| Objection raised | Court’s response |
|---|---|
| Complaint filed, so investigation is over | Explanation to Section 44(1) enables supplementary complaints on further evidence — investigation continues |
| Court permission required for further probe | Further investigation is a statutory, continuing power; no prior leave needed |
| Summons interferes with pending trial | Trial begins at charge framing; a pending discharge application is not a trial |
What this means for persons summoned
For those navigating ED proceedings — in Delhi’s special courts as much as Calcutta’s — the decision counsels realism about writ challenges to Section 50 summonses. The summons itself is a low-threshold instrument, and courts rarely strangle an investigation at that stage. Energy is better spent on the stages where rights crystallise: the voluntariness and use of Section 50 statements, the sufficiency of the complaint and any supplementary complaint at cognizance and discharge, and the attachment proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. Appearing under protest, with a contemporaneous written record of what transpired, preserves every one of those arguments without the cost of a failed writ.
Practice pointer: a person summoned afresh after the complaint should seek copies of the material said to justify further investigation at the discharge stage — the supplementary complaint, when it comes, must stand on evidence, and gaps between the summons and the material eventually produced are fertile ground for the defence.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the petitioner challenging?
The ED had registered its case in February 2020, building on a CBI charge sheet of 2013 in a fraud and corruption matter, and had filed a prosecution complaint before the special court. While the trial proceedings were pending — and with the petitioner's discharge application on file — the ED issued fresh notices on 27 August and 2 September 2026 under Section 50 PMLA directing the petitioner and his wife to appear for further investigation. The writ petition sought to quash those notices.
What is Section 50 PMLA?
It arms ED authorities with powers of a civil court to summon any person, enforce attendance, examine on oath and compel production of records. Statements under Section 50 are recorded in proceedings deemed judicial, and non-compliance carries its own consequences — which is why such summonses are frequently, and usually unsuccessfully, challenged in writ jurisdiction.
Why did the ED not need the special court's permission?
The Court held that further investigation by the ED is a statutory and continuing power, and that the Explanation to Section 44(1) PMLA is an enabling provision expressly contemplating the filing of supplementary complaints on further evidence. It also reasoned that a trial commences only after charges are framed, so investigation conducted while a discharge application is pending does not trench upon any ongoing trial.
Does this leave a summoned person without protection?
No. The merits of any supplementary complaint remain testable before the special court; statements under Section 50 must still satisfy the safeguards the Supreme Court has laid down for their use; and mala fide or harassing summonses can still be challenged on their own facts. What the decision forecloses is the broad proposition that the complaint's filing freezes the ED's investigative powers.