The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition challenging further investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) after the filing of a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), holding that the agency’s power to investigate does not end merely because the case has reached the Special Court.
The bench of Justice Krishna Rao noted that charges had not yet been framed against the accused and, therefore, the trial had not commenced and declined to interfere with notices issued under Section 50 of the PMLA requiring the petitioner and his wife to appear before the ED for evidence and production of documents.
BUY NOW: 50+ PMLA JUDGEMENTS : CASE LAWS
The proceedings originated from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on March 30, 2013, against Kejriwal, his wife and his son. The alleged offences included criminal conspiracy, cheating and use of forged documents under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
After completing its investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet on December 29, 2013. Relying on the scheduled offences underlying those proceedings, the ED registered ECIR No. KLZO/05/2020 on February 13, 2020.
On March 31, 2022, the ED provisionally attached movable and immovable properties under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. It subsequently approached the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the attachment, which was upheld on September 23, 2022.
The ED also filed a prosecution complaint on April 8, 2022, before the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1, Calcutta. The case was subsequently transferred to the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 4/ED Court.
The attachment proceedings had separately been challenged before the High Court by companies and individuals connected with the matter. Kejriwal and others were subsequently impleaded in that petition.
By an order dated December 5, 2025, a coordinate bench set aside the attachment of the immovable property of Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills Limited and the consequential proceedings relating to that attachment. However, the attachment of 1,793 shares belonging to Kejriwal and his wife was retained. An appeal against that order was pending when the present petition was considered.
The immediate dispute arose from fresh notices issued by the ED under Section 50 of the PMLA.
Kejriwal’s wife, Alka Kejriwal, received a notice dated August 27, 2026, requiring her appearance on August 31. After she sought an adjournment, the agency directed her to appear on September 7. She again sought time on grounds of illness.
Kejriwal received a similar notice dated September 2, 2026, directing him to appear on September 8 to give evidence and produce documents. He also sought additional time.
Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing for Kejriwal, argued that the ED had completed its investigation and filed its prosecution complaint. According to the petitioner, the agency could not revive or continue the investigation while proceedings were pending before the Special Court without first obtaining that court’s permission.
The petitioner also referred to the discharge proceedings before the Special Court and contended that issuing further investigative notices at that stage exceeded the agency’s jurisdiction.
Reliance was placed on Pramod Kumar and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and the Supreme Court’s order in Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India and Others. The petitioner argued that these decisions required judicial permission for further investigation or for bringing additional evidence on record.
Advocate Arijit Chakraborty, representing the ED, opposed the petition and submitted that Section 44(1) of the PMLA did not require prior permission from the Special Court for further investigation.
The agency also relied on Section 71, which gives the PMLA overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of other laws, and argued that the court-permission requirement for further investigation during trial under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), did not govern the matter in the manner suggested by the petitioner.
The ED cited the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Enforcement Directorate v. Debabrata Halder, which recognised further investigation as the prerogative of the investigating agency and distinguished permission from the duty to inform the court. The judgment records that the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition challenging that decision.
A central consideration in the High Court’s decision was the stage of the criminal proceedings.
The Court recorded that the Special Court had rejected the petitioner’s discharge application on August 29, 2026, and fixed September 18, 2026, for consideration of charge. However, charges had not yet been framed.
Justice Rao held that a trial commences after the framing of charges. Consequently, the mere filing of a prosecution complaint and the pendency of proceedings before the Special Court did not establish that the case had entered the trial stage.
The Court also referred to Section 193 of the BNSS, which permits further investigation during trial with the permission of the court trying the case, subject to the prescribed time limit and permissible extensions. Its finding that the trial had not commenced was therefore significant to the challenge before it.
The High Court examined Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of the PMLA. This provision recognises subsequent complaints arising from further investigation undertaken to obtain additional oral or documentary evidence against persons involved in the money laundering offence, whether or not they were named in the original complaint.
The Court observed that Section 44(1) begins with a non obstante clause and that further investigation is a statutory and continuing power of the authorised agency.
It explained that the provision enables the agency to pursue additional evidence even after filing a complaint, preventing the original filing from becoming a barrier to investigating other persons or material connected with the offence.
The Court also distinguished further investigation from reinvestigation.
Further investigation supplements the earlier investigation by gathering additional material. Reinvestigation, by contrast, cannot be undertaken without leave of the court, the judgment observed.
Referring to decisions including State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, State of Tamil Nadu v. Hemendhra Reddy and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, the High Court discussed the statutory recognition of further investigation after submission of the original report and after cognizance has been taken.
It treated further investigation as a continuation of the earlier investigative process.
The High Court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on Pramod Kumar on the ground that the decision considered Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than Section 44 of the PMLA.
It also reproduced the Supreme Court’s order in Bhupesh Kumar Baghel, which discussed the interpretation of Section 44 in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
