2021 (11) TMI 555 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - PMLA

Head Note / Extract:
Constitutional validity of Section 50(2), (3) and (4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 24, 63 and 66 of the PMLA 2002 - Seeking for a direction to restrain the respondent no. 2 from issuing any further summons under Section 50(2) of PMLA 2002 against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court while considering the prayer as made on behalf of the petitioner finds that petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 as void and inoperative or being violative of Article 14, 20(3), 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought for an order of interim stay of the operation of the impugned summons dated 24.9.2021 and 25.10.2021 to restrain the respondent no. 2 from issuing any further summons under Section 50 (2) of the PMLA, 2002. It is rightly pointed out that the summon dated 24.9.2021 has already been dealt with by virtue of the reply given by the petitioner on 7.10.2021 enclosing the copies of the documents required by the respondent authority. So, there is no question of challenging the summon dated 24.9.2021. It appears that the second summon dated 25.10.2021 issued by respondent no. 2 received by the petitioner is on similar terms as in the first summon in response to which the petitioner had replied and sought for accommodation of time for his attendance and to appear before the respondent no. 2 through video conferencing or by physical appearance before the office of the respondent no. 2 in Kolkata. Thus, the petitioner is not avoiding to co-operate the respondent no. 2 into the investigation but the prayer as made on behalf of the petitioner alternatively is for ad interim order of protection which has been sought for against the respondent no. 2 from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with the said case and further to allow him to be examined or to allow him to cooperate into the investigation before the respondent no. 2 vide video conferencing or at the office of the respondent no. 2 at Kolkata. This Court is convinced that the petitioner is required by the respondent authority only for cooperating into the investigation as he is not an FIR named accused in connection with the case - Let the matter appear six weeks hence with the direction upon the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition and reply thereto within the period of six weeks. List the matter accordingly.