Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Krishna Rao, J.:

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a mandamus restraining the respondent authorities for taking any further investigation in ML Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 dated 13^th February, 2020, under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending before the Learned Court of Special Judge, CBI and ED Court No.4, Calcutta.

On 30^th March, 2013, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”) has registered a case against the petitioner, his wife and his son for the alleged offences under Section 120B/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On completion of investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others.

On 13^th February, 2020, the respondent no. 2 had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “ECIR”) being No. ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 dated 13^th February, 2020, against the petitioner and his family members by treating the charge sheet submitted by the CBI as the scheduled offence. During pendency of investigation, the Joint Director of the Respondent no. 2 had passed a Provisional Attachment Order (hereinafter referred to as “PAO”) on 31^st March, 2022 wherein the movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner were attached as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”).

On 20^th April, 2022, the respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint vide Original Complaint No. 1693 of 2022 before the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under Section 8 of the PMLA for confirmation of the PAO dated 31^st March, 2022. The Adjudicating Officer has issued a Show Cause Notice dated 5^th May, 2022 to the petitioner and others under Section 8(1) of the PMLA.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, M/s Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills Ltd., M/s Welcast India Pvt. Ltd., Ramesh Kejriwal and Ankit Kejriwal filed a writ petition before this Court being WPA No. 17513 of 2022 challenging the order dated 31^st March, 2022 and the show cause notice dated 5^th May, 2022. As the petitioner was not arrayed as party in the said writ petition, the petitioner filed an application along with others for impleading them as party to the said writ petition and the petitioner along with others were impleaded as party in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 5^th December, 2025 by setting aside the order of attachment of the immovable property of M/s Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills Limited and all consequential proceedings related to the said attachment, except the attachment of 1793 shares of the petitioner and the petitioner’s wife. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 5^th December, 2025 passed in WPA No. 17513 of 2022 has preferred an appeal being MAT No. 317 of 2026 and the same is pending for disposal.

On 8^th April, 2022, after completion of inquiry/ investigation, the respondent no. 2 had filed the prosecution complaint in connection with ML Case No. 09 of 2022 before the Learned Court of Special Judge (CBI) Court No.1, Calcutta. On 19^th November, 2024, the record of the said case was transferred to the Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 4/ED Court. On 23^rd September, 2022, the Adjudicating Authority has passed an order by upholding the PAO dated 31^st March, 2022, passed by the Joint Director of the respondent no.2.

Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner has received a notice dated 27^th August, 2026 under Section 50 of the PMLA issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 directing the wife of the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 31^st August, 2026. On receipt of the said notice, the wife of the petitioner by an email dated 30^th August, 2026, sought for time and the respondents directed her to appear before the respondent on 7^th September, 2026. The wife of the petitioner again prayed for time due to her illness.

On 2^nd September, 2026, the petitioner has also received similar notice with the direction to appear before the respondent no.3 on 8^th September, 2026 and the petitioner has also prayed for time by an email dated 7^th September, 2026.

Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the respondents have issued the notices to the petitioner and his wife in connection with pending PMLA proceeding before the Learned Special Court being ML Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of KLZO/05/2020. He submits that the respondents have revived the investigation without any leave or order from the Special Court wherein the trial of the case against the petitioner is pending.

Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that issuance of notice by the investigating agency during the pendency of trial and without any order from the trial Court or any leave from the Court is without any jurisdiction. He submits that the investigating agency already filed charge sheet after completion of investigation and the petitioner has filed an application for discharge and during hearing of the said discharge application, the investigating agency has issued notice which is beyond their jurisdiction.

Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that if the investigating agency intending to investigate the matter further during pendency of trial before the appropriate Court, the investigating agency ought to have taken leave or permission from the Learned Court but in the case of the petitioner without obtaining leave or any permission from the Trial Court has issued notice which is not permissible under law.

Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition being WPA No. 17513 of 2022 dated 5^th December, 2025, given liberty to the Enforcement Directorate from initiating any further investigation against the petitioner and others in due process of law in the event, the Enforcement Directorate is otherwise so entitled in law but the respondents without taking any leave or order from the Court where the trial is pending has initiated further investigation.

Mr. Bhattacharjee in support of his case, has relied upon the judgement in the case of Pramod Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2026) 5 SCC 308 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the event the police or investigating agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/ Court, without directing an order for further investigation by themselves.

Mr. Bhattacharjee has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupesh Kumar Baghel Vs. Union of India and Others passed in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 301 of 2025 dated 11^th August, 2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the further evidence can be brought on record with the prior permission of the Court.

Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Learned Advocate, representing the respondents submits that the writ petitioner by filing the present writ petition praying for stay of all proceedings of ML Case No. 11 of 2022 arising out of ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 dated 13^th February, 2020, pending before the Learned Special Judge.

Mr. Chakraborty submits that in one hand the petitioner and his wife after receipt of notice from the respondents herein for further investigation requested for adjournment on the ground of their illness and on the other hand, the petitioner and his wife taking time before the Learned Special Court that they are appearing before the respondent authorities in connection with the notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

Mr. Chakraborty submits that as per Section 44(1) of the PMLA, there is no requirement of any order or leave from Court for further investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. He further referred to Section 71 of the PMLA and submits that the provisions of the PMLA are having overriding effect contain in any other law. He submits that the last proviso of Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not applicable under the PMLA.

Mr. Chakraborty in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Enforcement Directorate Vs. Debabrata Halder reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4095 and submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that an investigating agency is not required to pray for permission for further investigation of the case which is settled principle of law and the same is prerogative of the investigating agency.

Mr. Chakraborty submits that the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata Halder Vs. Enforcement Directorate in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 441 of 2023 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court without interfering with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition by an order dated 25^th January, 2023.

Mr. Chakraborty has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Gautam Kundu and Another in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s). 271 of 2024 dated 3^rd December, 2024 wherein the issue was whether after filing of the complaint, the accused can be called for interrogation or not for the purpose of recording their statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court did not take into consideration of the explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of the PMLA and set aside the order of the High Court.

The issue raised in the present writ petition whether the investigating agency (Enforcement Directorate) can start further investigation during pendency of the case before the Court without permission or leave of the Criminal Court where the case is pending.

Section 193 of the Bharaitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides: “Report of police officer on completion of investigation”. The last proviso of Section 193 provides that Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety (90) days which may be extended with the permission of the Court. Under the said provision of BNSS, 2023, there is no bar for conducting further investigation during trial but with the permission of the Court.

The case involved in the present writ petition, initially, the CBI has initiated a case on 30^th March, 2013 for commission of offences under Section 120B/420/ 471 of the IPC with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioner and his family members. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was also filed on 29^th December, 2013. On 13^th February, 2020, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case being ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020, against the petitioner and others by treating the charge sheet filed by the CBI as the scheduled offence. On completion of investigation, the Enforcement Directorate has filed prosecution complaint being ML Case No. 09 of 2022 before the Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1 Calcutta and subsequently the case is transferred to the Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 4/ED Court Calcutta.

The petitioner has filed an application before the Trial Court for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Judge by an order No. 47 dated 29^th August, 2026, rejected the application filed by the petitioner and others and fixed the case for consideration of charge on 18^th September, 2026.

On 27^th August, 2026, the Enforcement Directorate has issued a notice under Section 50 of the PMLA to Smt. Alka Kejriwal with the direction to appear before the respondent no. 3 on 31^st August, 2026 and on 2^nd September, 2026, a notice under Section 50 of the PMLA was issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 3 on 8^th September, 2026 to give evidence and to produce documents.

Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, reads as follows:

Section 44(1) begins with non–abstante clause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 44 of the PMLA, has clearly recognized that further investigation is a statutory and continuing power of the authorized agency and that the Explanation is an enabling provision intended to ensure that no offender of money laundering escapes prosecution merely because a complaint has already been filed.

It is settled proposition of law that trial commences only after framing of charges and not prior thereto. In the present case, it is admitted position that charges have not yet framed, therefore, the trial has not commenced. The statutory recognition of further investigation even after filing of final report is well settled under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been consistently interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.S. Peter reported in (2008) 2 SCC 383, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

The discretion between further investigation and re-investigation equally settled. While re-investigation without leave of the Court is impermissible, further investigation is expressly sanctioned by law. This position was reaffirmed in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762, wherein it was held that further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. is permissible even after submission of the police report and that the report arising therefrom is termed a supplementary report.

In the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr. reported in (2023) 16 SCC 779, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that even de hors a specific direction of the Court, further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Three Judges Bench judgment in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1 held that further investigation can continue even after the Magistrate has taken cognizance. There is no requirement for recalling or reviewing the order accepting the final report and further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation and does not attract the principle of double jeopardy.

In the case of Debabrata Halder (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that :

The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra) but in the said case the Hon’ble Court has considered only the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not Section 44 of the PMLA.

Similar issue was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupesh Kumar Baghel (supra) and in the said case the Hon’ble Court by considering the Judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), passed the following order:

Considering the above, this Court did not find any reasons to interference with the further investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate by issuing notice to the petitioner.

WPA No. 26283 of 2026 is dismissed. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment placed on the official website of the Court. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.