NEW DELHI: Even if one FIR is closed, the existence of other FIRs with the same or similar allegations will be valid ground for continuation of ED’s investigation under PMLA, Allahabad high court has ruled while dismissing a petition of Sahara group companies, which sought to restrict the ED from probing allegations of money laundering on the grounds that the predicate offence in this case was missing given that the original FIR was closed in 2020. In the Sahara case, the HC took cognisance of ED’s submission that 502 FIRs were filed against Sahara group entities in various states.Chargesheets have been filed for 276 FIRs against Sahara groupIn the Sahara case, the HC took cognisance of ED’s submission that 502 FIRs were filed against Sahara group entities in various states across the country, out of which 315 FIRs were registered for commission of scheduled offences under PMLA. Chargesheets have been filed for 276 FIRs. “Regarding the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no proceedings can continue under the PMLA after filing of a closure report in FIR No. 142 of 2020, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Delhi high court in Rajinder Singh Chadha v. Union of India,” Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of Allahabad high court said.The judgment of Delhi HC in question stated that “there is no impediment in taking the third FIR on record which related to the same project forming the basis for registration of the first two FIRs, resulting in initiation of the impugned ECIR…” The ECIR is ED’s enforcement case information report, equivalent to a police FIR, for initiating an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court, in its Oct 17 judgment, also held that a probe by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) does not in any way restrict the ED from carrying out its own investigations under PMLA, dismissing Sahara’s plea that once an investigation has been entrusted to SFIO under the Companies Act, investigation by any other agency becomes barred.“This submission also cannot be accepted because even after extension of the scope of investigation by SFIO, it does not include investigation against any of the petitioners, namely, Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd, Stars Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd and Saharayan Universal Multipurpose Society Ltd. Therefore, there is no illegality in continuation of proceedings under PMLA against the petitioners,” the judge said.The court also rejected the contention of Sahara entities that ED cannot investigate the matter since the case falls under the ambit of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS), which overrides IPC – and as BUDS offences are not scheduled offences under PMLA.“Merely because an act makes out commission of an offence under the BUDS Act, it cannot be said that although the act is punishable as an offence under IPC also, the offender cannot be prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under IPC. Therefore, I find no force in the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner,” Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed.
