Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2021 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 259 - HC - Money LaunderingPetition filed challenging the summon issued - anticipation of threat and coercion during appearance - seeking direction to respondents to abstain from harassing, threatening or coercing the petitioners during questioning - seeking permission of presence of a legal practitioner - seeking to to limit the questioning time between 9.30 a.m and 4.30 p.m - seeking direction to respondents to provide copies of the statements taken from them. HELD THAT:- The question regarding maintainability of writ petition against a summons under Section 50 and the entitlement to have the presence of a legal practitioner during questioning was considered and negated by this Court in C.M. RAVEENDRAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ASST. DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [2020 (12) TMI 703 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Therein, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in KIRIT SHRIMANKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2014 (12) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT] and UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA [2006 (11) TMI 543 - SUPREME COURT] - In Kirit Shrimankar, the petitioner had approached the Apex Court after the Customs officials conducted a search in the residential premises of his former wife. The petitioner alleged that he was threatened with arrest and incarceration if he did not submit to the dictates of the Customs Officials. The Apex Court observed that it was highly premature for the petitioner to seek remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India based on such flimsy averments, which cannot form the basis for a prima facie apprehension. Thereupon, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. In Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the appellant had approached the court on being served with a show cause notice by his employer as to the genuineness of his caste certificate. The decision of the High Court of Delhi in VIRBHADRA SINGH & ANOTHER VERSUS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANOTHER, CHUNNI LAL CHAUHAN VERSUS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANOTHER, VIKRAMADITYA SINGH VERSUS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND PICHESWAR GADDE VERSUS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE MINISTRY OF FINANCE & OTHERS [2017 (7) TMI 109 - DELHI HIGH COURT]], is to the effect that, no person is entitled in law to evade the command of the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act on the ground of a possibility of such person being prosecuted in future. Hence, the legal position is that a person issued with summons under Section 50(2) of the Act is bound to appear in person or through authorised agents, as the case may be and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined and that, no cause of action arises merely for reason of a person being thus summoned - As held by the Apex Court in DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI VERSUS ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA [1997 (11) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT], it is not for this Court to monitor the investigation and to decide the venue, the timings, the questions and the manner of questioning. Petition dismissed.
|