Uttarakhand HC upholds ED’s further searches in exam-paper leak probe before trial begins

Multiple FIRs concerning the alleged leak of the UKSSSC Graduate Level Examination 2021 were treated as scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR.

The petitioner’s premises were searched, bank accounts were frozen, and he was summoned under Section 50 PMLA.

After the Enforcement Directorate filed Prosecution Complaint No. 69 of 2024, it conducted further searches at the petitioner’s residence in September 2026, seized bank lockers and an iPhone, and issued another Section 50 summons.

The petitioner challenged those searches and summons under Article 226, alleging impermissible continuation of the investigation and breach of statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The Court noted that the cognizance order had separately been set aside on the limited ground that a pre-cognizance hearing had not been granted, with the Special Court directed to proceed from the cognizance stage.

1. Whether the Enforcement Directorate could conduct further searches under Section 17 PMLA after filing a prosecution complaint, or whether doing so amounted to impermissible “evergreening” of the investigation in violation of Articles 14 and 21.

2. Whether prior permission of the Special Court under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), was required for the further investigation and searches.

3. Whether the impugned searches and summons were invalid for failure to comply with the safeguards governing the exercise of powers under Section 17 PMLA.

Section 44(1), Explanation (ii), PMLA permits further investigation after a prosecution complaint has been filed; the Court relied on Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Gautam Kundu and Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union of India for the proposition that further investigation and the production of additional evidence remain open to the Enforcement Directorate.

Section 17 PMLA authorises searches subject to statutory safeguards, including the authorised officer recording reasons to believe and forwarding the relevant material to the adjudicating authority; the Court referred to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India in this regard.

Section 193(9) BNSS requires prior court permission for further investigation undertaken “during trial”; the Court held that trial commences only after charges are framed, so such permission was not required where charges had not yet been framed.

The Court rejected the contention that filing the prosecution complaint barred further searches, holding that Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) PMLA expressly permits further investigation.

It found that each challenged search had been authorised under Section 17 by an officer of the rank of Deputy Director, with reasons recorded and forwarded to the adjudicating authority in a sealed cover; it therefore concluded that the relevant statutory safeguards had been followed.

As charges had not been framed, the Court held that the investigation was not being conducted “during trial” and prior permission under Section 193(9) BNSS was unnecessary.

It dismissed the writ petition.