Case at a Glance
An accused in the money-laundering case arising from the alleged leak of the UKSSSC Graduate Level examination, 2021 challenged fresh Enforcement Directorate searches of September 2026, in which bank lockers and an iPhone were seized, even though the ED had already filed its prosecution complaint and cognizance had been taken. He called it ‘evergreening’ of investigation. The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that the power of further investigation is built into PMLA through Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1), upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 07 SC CK 0102, that the Section 17 search procedure had been followed, and that Special Court permission under Section 193(9) BNSS is needed only during trial, which begins after charges are framed.
FIR No. 289 of 2022 at Police Station Raipur, Dehradun, and related FIRs concern the alleged leak of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UKSSSC) Graduate Level examination, 2021. Treating these as scheduled offences, the ED registered ECIR/DNSZO/06/2022 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Earlier searches under Section 17 covered the petitioner’s residence and his HDFC and Axis Bank accounts were frozen under Section 17(1A); he was summoned under Section 50 and gave statements. The ED then filed Prosecution Complaint Case No. 69 of 2024 before the Special Court, Dehradun, which took cognizance.
On 10 September 2026 the ED searched the same residence again, seized two bank lockers and an iPhone and issued fresh Section 50 summons; a further search followed on 24 September 2026, and on 25 September 2026 a PNB locker was seized. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the searches of 10 and 25 September and the summons of 21 September 2026, arguing that post-complaint searches revive a completed investigation without fresh material, that ‘reason to believe’ must rest on recorded material, that searches after cognizance need Special Court permission under Section 193 BNSS, and that Articles 14 and 21 were violated. The ED said he was accused No. 10, that the company which allegedly printed the papers was accused No. 11, that each search followed a fresh Section 17 authorisation (No. 12 of 2026 dated 9 September 2026) with reasons sent in sealed cover to the adjudicating authority, and that most of the alleged proceeds were untraced.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Enforcement Directorate conduct fresh searches and issue summons under PMLA after filing its prosecution complaint, and does it need the Special Court’s permission under Section 193 BNSS before charges are framed?
Further investigation is written into PMLA
Justice Pankaj Purohit relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court upheld Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of PMLA and the safeguard of forwarding reasons in sealed cover to the adjudicating authority. The Court held that the “power of further investigation is enshrined in the statute itself” and, referring also to Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Gautam Kundu and Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India, that “further investigation is well open to Investigating Agency.” While accepting that Section 17 search powers are not unbridled, the Court found that the statutory procedure had been followed in this case.
On the BNSS argument, the Court held that Section 193(9) BNSS, which requires the court’s permission for further investigation, applies only during trial, and trial commences only after charges are framed. Since charges had not been framed, “permission of the court is not necessary.” The Court noted that by an earlier order of 25 September 2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2050 of 2026 it had set aside cognizance on the limited ground that no pre-cognizance hearing was given, directing the trial court to proceed afresh from the cognizance stage. Finding no reason to interfere with the ED’s further investigation, it dismissed the writ petition.
What the Court Actually Held
- Further investigation after filing a prosecution complaint is permitted by PMLA itself through Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1), as upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
- Section 17 search powers are not unbridled, but the statutory procedure (fresh authorisation and reasons in sealed cover) had been followed here.
- Special Court permission under Section 193(9) BNSS is required only for further investigation during trial, which begins after charges are framed; it was not needed here.
- There was no ground to interfere with the ED’s searches and summons; the writ petition was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies, for Uttarakhand, that filing a PMLA prosecution complaint does not freeze the ED’s investigative powers.
- It reads Section 193(9) BNSS narrowly, tying the court-permission requirement to the trial stage.
- It arises from one of the State’s most closely watched recruitment-exam leak cases, where most of the alleged proceeds remain untraced according to the ED.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused Persons
- A completed ED complaint does not bar fresh searches or Section 50 summons.
- Challenges are stronger where Section 17 safeguards (written reasons, authorisation, sealed cover) were not followed.
- Court permission under Section 193(9) BNSS becomes relevant once charges are framed.
For Counsel
- Ask for the Section 17 authorisation and proof that reasons were forwarded to the adjudicating authority.
- Track the stage of proceedings: pre-charge further investigation does not need court leave on this reasoning.
- Cite Vijay Madanlal Choudhary on Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) PMLA.
Key Takeaways
- ED can investigate further after filing its PMLA complaint.
- Section 17 safeguards must be followed, and were found followed here.
- Section 193(9) BNSS permission applies only during trial.
- Writ petition against post-complaint searches dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the ED search again after it has filed a prosecution complaint?
Yes, according to this ruling. The High Court held that further investigation is provided for in PMLA itself (Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1)), as upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
Does the ED need the Special Court’s permission for further investigation?
The Court held that Section 193(9) BNSS requires permission only during trial, which starts after charges are framed. Since charges had not been framed, no permission was needed.
What is this case about?
It arises from the alleged leak of the UKSSSC Graduate Level examination, 2021. The petitioner is accused No. 10 in the ED’s money-laundering case, in which his lockers and phone were seized in September 2026.
Conclusion
The judgment gives the ED room to keep tracing alleged proceeds of crime after it has filed its complaint, so long as each search follows the Section 17 safeguards. For accused persons, the main line of challenge after this ruling lies in procedural compliance rather than in the stage of the case.
Practical takeaway: In PMLA matters before charges are framed, contest post-complaint searches on Section 17 compliance; a plea of ‘evergreening’ alone is unlikely to succeed.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com