Calcutta High Court: ED need not seek trial-court permission for further PMLA investigation before charges are framed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR against the petitioner and his family in 2020, treating a CBI charge-sheet as the scheduled offence.

After filing a prosecution complaint under the PMLA, the ED issued notices under Section 50 of the PMLA to the petitioner and his wife in August and September 2026, seeking their appearance to give evidence and produce documents

The petitioner had sought discharge before the Special Court; the application was rejected, but charges had not yet been framed

He sought a writ restraining further investigation, arguing that the ED required the trial court’s permission. The ED contended that no such permission was required under the PMLA

1. Whether the ED could continue or undertake further investigation and issue Section 50 notices after filing its prosecution complaint, without obtaining permission from the Special Court

2. Whether the statutory requirement of court permission for further investigation during trial applied when charges had not yet been framed

Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) permits further investigation during trial with the permission of the court trying the case.

Section 44 of the PMLA, which operates notwithstanding the CrPC, provides for trial of money-laundering offences by Special Courts; its Explanation (ii) permits further evidence to be brought on record in respect of an offence for which a complaint has already been filed.

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Supreme Court explained that the ED may seek the Special Court’s permission to bring further evidence on record during trial.

The Court also relied on authorities recognising further investigation as a continuing investigative power after filing a report, 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.

It noted Debabrata Halder v. Enforcement Directorate, which held that permission is not required for further investigation, and distinguished Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh because it concerned Section 173(8) of the CrPC, not Section 44 of the PMLA.

The Court held that the statutory permission requirement for further investigation during trial did not bar the notices in this case because the Special Court had not framed charges and, in the Court’s view, trial had not commenced.

It considered Section 44 of the PMLA and the authorities recognising the ED’s power to conduct further investigation after filing its complaint.

The Court understood Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India to address obtaining permission to bring further evidence on record during trial, rather than to prohibit investigation before trial had commenced.

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the ED’s investigation or its issuance of Section 50 notices.

The writ petition was dismissed