Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 980 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTMoney Laundering - issuance of summons in the background of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution - cause of action - power conferred upon the authorities by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the reading of Section 50 of PMLA as well as decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] that the power conferred upon the authorities by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA empower them to summon 'any person' whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any records during the course of investigation or proceedings under PMLA. The persons so summoned are also bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and are required to state truth upon any subject concerning which such person is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required in a case. In the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M. Exports [2007 (3) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with a case of issuance of summons under Section 108 of Customs Act, had expressed that except in exceptional cases, High Courts should not interfere at the stage of issuance of summons. In respect of the provisions of "PMLA", Section 50(2) of the Act unambiguously enumerates that the Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act - The "PMLA", being a Special Act, has provided certain mandatory provisions in order to ensure the effective investigation of the offence of money laundering. The officers empowered under PMLA are required to make investigation into the offences under the said law and having regard to the observations made by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary they could not be equated with police officers. The law confers upon them requisite powers to carry out investigation and collect evidence. No person is entitled in law to evade the summons issued under Section 50 PMLA on the ground that there is a possibility that he may be arrested in the future. The investigation in the present ECIR,S are still continuing and the petitioner has only been summoned to appear and submit certain documents which may be in his possession as he had been an employee of the Companies under scanner, thus the petitioner's prayer for quashing of ECIR'S itself is premature as at this stage even the status of the applicant before the ED is not known and the same is in the realm of future. This Court is of the considered opinion that this petition has been filed by petitioner on mere apprehension. If the Investigating Authorities are having enough materials to proceed against a person in a manner known to law and by adhering strictly to the provisions of law, then they are duty bound to do so as the law so warrants and permits them to adopt such course of action. These are all the decisions to be taken only after completing an effective investigation or atleast preliminary investigation. The investigation process should not be hampered at this initial stage. This Court is of a strong opinion that interference at this stage in respect of the facts and the circumstances of the present case on hand, is certainly unwarranted. This Court finds no good ground to quash the summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA to the petitioner or the impugned ECIR's - Petition dismissed.
|