Former Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a plea by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel challenging the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provision, which empowered the Enforcement Directorate to file supplementary chargesheets in money laundering cases, saying that the "devil is not in the law" but "in the abuse" of the provisions of PMLA.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi declined to examine the constitutional validity of Section 44 of the PMLA, which empowered officials of the central agency to file supplementary chargesheet.
The bench said the embargo cannot be put on unravelling evidence in the pursuit of truth. "The devil is not in the law but in the abuse," the bench said.
The bench said if the power is strictly exercised according to the provisions, it can be to the benefit of the accused too.
The court said that investigation is done with respect to an offence and truth is its only pursuit.
However, the court allowed the Congress leader to move before the high court in case he believed the ED officials, who are investigating a number of cases in Chhattisgarh, weren't following the procedure laid down in the apex court's 2022 verdict.
"There is nothing wrong in the provision. If it is being abused, then go to the high court," the bench said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, contended that the trial is delayed, as ED files supplementary complaints in PMLA cases every few months.
However, the bench said that further investigation may be beneficial to the accused also.
The court also pointed out that an accused is incidental to the investigation, and the investigation has nothing to do with filing police reports or not filing a report with respect to an individual.
"Truth is the only pursuit of an investigator and ultimately a judge. And in this voyage, there cannot be an embargo," the bench said.
The court also pointed out that the central agency is required to take prior permission of the special PMLA court for further investigation.
Sibal argued that the agency does not do that.
"Therefore, that is the problem. Not the provision itself,” the bench said.
The court finally said it is not keen to entertain the plea and gave the liberty to the petitioner to move before the Chhattisgarh HC.