Statement to ED by accused under PMLA custody incriminating oneself in another PMLA case inadmissible: Supreme Court
Legal news firm Live Law reports that the Court has ruled that a statement made by an accused in custody cannot be considered admissible under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan made this important ruling while granting bail to an accused in a money laundering case.
Hyderabad: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that a statement given by an accused, while under custody in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), to investigating officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) incriminating oneself in another money laundering case would be inadmissible in evidence.
According to legal news firm Live Law, the Court held that such a statement given by an accused under custody cannot be treated as admissible under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan made the significant pronouncement while granting bail to an accused in a money laundering case. The bench noted that while the accused was under custody in connection with one Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), his statement was recorded by the ED officers in connection with the present ECIR.
The bench considered the following question – when a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same investigating agency, whether the statements recorded for a new case in which arrest is not yet shown and which is claimed to have incriminating materials against the maker would be admissible under Section 50 of PMLA.
The bench noted that the 3-bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) held that statements recorded by ED officers under Section 50 of the PMLA were admissible in evidence. At the same time, the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment added that whether the protection of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 – which makes confessions to police inadmissible in evidence – is available to an accused facing prosecution for offences under the PMLA has to be decided on a case-to-case basis.
“We have no hesitation in holding that when an accused is under custody under PMLA, irrespective of the case of which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same investigating agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It would be extremely unsafe to render such a statement admissible against the maker as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice.”
The Court further held that a person in judicial custody, not being a free person, cannot be summoned by the ED. The ED has to obtain the permission of the Court which has remanded him to custody in the other case to record the statement of the accused in custody.
