The Delhi High Court recently held that the Special Court under PMLA is not required to record the reasons for considering an Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint, unlike a private complaint under CrPC or BNSS.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh I observed that Even if the investigation is not fully completed, a first complaint can be filed by the ED under Section 44 of the PMLA.

According to the court, this can be done specifically under Explanation-II introduced in 2019, which allows the ED to file additional complaints.

Explanation II to Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA provides that any complaint includes any additional complaints that may be made for further investigation.

The court said the addition of that statement clarified the legislature’s intention to advance adjudication of existing evidence while enabling ongoing investigative processes.

“In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that a first complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA can be made even if the investigation is not fully completed, especially in the light of Explanation-II filed during the year. 2019, which allowed the filing of an additional complaint, the court said.

Justice Singh made these observations while rejecting the plea of ​​accused Sanjay Aggarwal while challenging the trial court order rejecting his plea to strike out the PMLA case against him on the ground that no information was received by the concerned Court.

His case was that information was obtained only after the magistrate had given his mind to the alleged offence. He submitted that neither his name was included in the FIR nor any discretionary order was passed by the concerned Court invalidating the subsequent proceedings.

The ED reportedly lodged a complaint without completing its investigation, in violation of Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, which mandates that complaints be made only after investigation.

He also argued that the amendment to Section 44(1)(b) allowing additional complaints was not retrospective and likewise did not allow the initial complaint to be filed prematurely.

On the other hand, ED argued that the High Criminal Court detected the crime in December 2015, when the complaint was made. According to the ED, this can be inferred from the actions of the trial court to register the case and proceed with the case without the need for any approval. official order.

Rejecting the claim, the Court observed: “…. It is pertinent to note here that under PMLA, the Special Court is not required to record the grounds of appreciation as the complaint in question is filed by an investigating agency unlike the private complaint under Section 190 (currently Section 210) of the CrPC. BNSS).”

The court rejected Aggarwal’s plea and said the trial court duly took cognizance of the alleged offense and also registered the complaint on prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding under the PMLA.

He also rejected the claim that the notice was received unlawfully and that Statement-II, which was amended in 2019, cannot be implemented.

“A perusal of Explanation-II to Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA reveals that it is clearly stated that ED has the right to incorporate any subsequent complaint to conduct further investigation into an alleged incident. crime against the defendants. The court stated that the purpose of this was to introduce additional evidence, oral or documentary, against any defendant against whom a complaint had already been made, whether or not they were named in the original complaint.

Title: SANJAY AGGARWAL v. ED

Click here to read the rankings