The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that it is not required to provide a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the person who is the subject of the case in every instance and that it is not the same as a FIR.
“Supply of a copy of ECIR to the individual concerned in every case is not essential; it is sufficient if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest,” a bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and composed of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar stated. The bench stated that the ECIR cannot be compared to a FIR due to a unique procedure set forth by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). “ECIR is an internal document of the ED,” it continued, “and the fact that a FIR has not been filed in relation to a scheduled offense does not stand in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 to begin an inquiry or investigation for the purpose of launching “civil action” or “provisional attachment” of property that is the proceeds of crime.”
It stated that the petitioners’ use of the prejudice defense to justify the non-supply of the ECIR deserved to have that defense answered against them. “For, the arrested person for the crime of money laundering is immediately informed about the reasons for his arrest; and when produced before the Special Court, it is open to the Special Court to call upon the representative of the ED to produce relevant records regarding the case of the accused before him and look into the same for determining whether his continued detention is necessary,” it was added. According to the petitioners’ attorney, the ED can currently detain someone on the basis of an ECIR without providing him with a copy of its contents, which is per se arbitrary and infringing on the constitutional rights of the accused. It was fiercely claimed that it is utterly arbitrary and discriminatory that the ECIR is sometimes provided freely and other times it is not.
The ED must be convinced that the proceeds of crime have been projected as untainted property for the registration of an ECIR or the application of the PMLA, according to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is speaking on behalf of one of the petitioners and citing the definition of “money laundering” under Section 3 of the PMLA. The highest court ruled that an ECIR cannot be compared to a FIR, which must be recorded and given to the accused by law. According to the statement, “Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made required, may contradict the aim envisaged by the 2002 Act, including hindering the attachment of property (proceeds of crime).”
It was decided that the failure to provide the ECIR, which is essentially an internal record of the ED, cannot be used to demonstrate a constitutional right was violated. “This complies with the Constitution’s mandate as stated in Article 22(1). It happens occasionally that the FIR does not fully describe the offense in question. Even the names of those who committed the crime are frequently left out of the FIR and are instead listed as “unknown accused,” “made a notation. The bench stated that even while the FIR does not contain all of the details as they came to light, the accused named in any regular offense is still eligible to ask for anticipatory bail or regular bail, during which time the court in question will typically review the police files. It further mentioned that, in some instances, the ED had given the person a copy of the ECIR prior to the complaint being filed. “That does not imply that the same process must be followed in every circumstance. It is sufficient if the ED immediately informs the individual of the reasons for the arrest at the time of the arrest, “It read.
The top court pointed out that the ECIR may include information on the documents that the authority is in possession of as well as a record of the satisfaction of the presumption that the individual is guilty of a money laundering offense. According to the bench, “If disclosed before the inquiry or investigation required to proceed against the property being proceeds of crime including to the person involved in the process or activity connected therewith, may have detrimental impact on the final outcome of the inquiry or investigation.”
The ED had argued that the ECIR was a departmental document generated internally before taking legal action or opening a criminal investigation against someone involved in a procedure or activity involving the proceeds of crime. More than 200 petitions contesting various PMLA sections were the subject of the Supreme court’s ruling.
