Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1410 - HC - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA Act - writ petitioner is seeking exemption only on the ground that a woman is exempted from personal appearance under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Held that:- Except by claiming that women are exempted under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts regarding the position, status and capacity of the writ petitioner to travel and provide informations to the authorities are not denied. The writ petitioner, being a Senior Advocate and having active and lucrative practice in various High Courts and before the Supreme Court of India, cannot say that she is not capable of personally appearing before the authorities concerned for the purpose of investigation. More-so, this Court expect that the respected Senior Advocate like the writ petitioner, should not shy away from co-operating for an effective investigation of such offences committed under the provisions of the "PMLA". When such is the current position, the spirit of Section 160 cannot be interpreted so as to nullify or paralise an effective investigation process of cases under PMLA. No writ can be entertained against the summons issued for the personal appearance of a person in order to give evidence or statement. The writ petition against such summons issued under the provisions of the Special Act, namely, "PMLA" can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances. Judicial review in this regard are certainly limited. The statements/explanations and the documents submitted by the authorised representative of the writ petitioner Shri N.R.R.Arun Natarajan were not satisfactory and certain ingredients are to be ascertained only by getting a personal statement from the writ petitioner in relation to the financial transactions. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in respect of insisting the writ petitioner for personal appearance for the purpose of seeking certain clarifications so as to cull out the truth in relation to the financial transactions and the documents filed by the writ petitioner before the Enforcement Directorate through her authorised Agent. this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner based on mere apprehension, cannot be permitted to move this writ petition that the respondents are having certain personal motive. Absolutely, there is no materials on record to show that there are personal motive against the writ petitioner. The personal motives or the mala fide intention are to be substantiated with sufficient materials. A mere statement made in an affidavit that the authorities are having certain personal motive or mala fide intention can never be accepted for the purpose of granting the relief in a writ petition, more specifically, in the nature of a case like on hand. The investigation process should not be hampered at this stage. The decisions in this regard are to be taken only after the completion of the investigation by the competent authorities by strictly following the provisions of law. The Courts cannot presume that what possible actions could be taken by the competent authorities at this stage, even before the completion of the investigation. Thus, 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 - the respondents are directed to issue fresh summons, fixing a date for the purpose of continuing the investigation and proceed with the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and stand dismissed.
|