State Chief Minister Hemant Soren has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) summons against him in connection with a money laundering case. ED had asked CM Soren to join its investigation in the alleged money laundering case on August 24. However, he did not appear before ED.
Earlier on August 14, Soren was summoned by the ED in connection with an alleged land scam case. However, Soren did not join the central agency probe citing he was busy with the preparation of the Independence Day celebration in the state.
He further stated that the central agencies were targeting him because he was not aligning with the central government.
The ED has denied that the agency is summoning him for political reasons. ED has told that he has been summoned only after the facts came during the investigation of the land scam.
The ED has been probing two major cases of money laundering in Jharkhand. The first case is related to illegal mining in Sahibganj. The CM was questioned in connection with the mining case on November 17 last year.
The second case is related to an alleged land scam in the state capital. 13 people, including IAS officer Chhavi Ranjan and two businessmen, Amit Agarwal of Kolkata and Bishnu Agarwal, who owns shopping malls in Ranchi, have already been arrested in connection with the alleged land scam.
Sources said that though Soren has knocked SC door for getting relief from ED questioning, Section 11 of the Prevention of money laundering act 2002 and its sub-sections empowers the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to summon. The officer concerned in this section has every power which is available in the determination of a suit in the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the power given by this act, the ED officials can compel the accused to produce evidence. Similarly, under sub-section 2 of Section 11, when a notice is sent by the ED, the person will be bound to appear before the officer.
Also, in section 19 of the Prevention of money laundering act 2002, under such circumstances, the concerned officer has the right to arrest the required person if he or she fails to appear before the probe agency despite getting repeated summons. Sources said that there is also provision of attachment of property if the concerned persons defy the summons.
According to the rules, if the ED feels that the wanted person is deliberately absconding from appearance, hiding facts, looking for possibility of tampering with the evidence, then in such circumstances arrest can be made. While taking action under Section 60, in case of escape from arrest, there is a provision for attachment, confiscation etc.
