2016 (7) TMI 1666 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - summon to petitioner No.2 for recording his statement even after a complaint has been filed against him - HELD THAT - On appearance of the petitioner No.2 at the post cognizance stage, the trial Court would be bound to accept the bail bond/surety bond to its satisfaction under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without taking the petitioner in custody and to pass appropriate orders on the same day. Petitioner No. 2 shall accordingly appear before the trial Court on 28.7.2016 to avail his right on furnishing bail bond/surety bond for further appearance. Let petitioner No.2 appear on 29.7.2016 in response to the summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement but it is made clear that the question of any arrest under Section 19 of the Act ibid does not arise at the post cognizance stage. Thus, declining the prayer for stay of operation of the summons (Annexure P-13) issued, the application is disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues: Application for stay of operations of summons under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The judgment involves an application filed by the petitioners seeking a stay on the operations of a summons issued under Section 15(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners argued that the summons was issued to petitioner No.2 for recording his statement despite a complaint being filed against him before the trial court and cognizance being taken. The court heard the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and referred to a previous order clarifying the legal position. The court stated that upon the appearance of petitioner No.2 at the post cognizance stage, the trial court would be required to accept the bail bond/surety bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without taking the petitioner into custody and to pass appropriate orders on the same day. The court directed petitioner No.2 to appear before the trial court to avail his right to furnish bail bond/surety bond for further appearance. Additionally, the court instructed petitioner No.2 to appear in response to the summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, clarifying that the question of arrest under Section 19 of the Act does not arise at the post cognizance stage. The court ultimately declined the prayer for a stay of the summons' operation and disposed of the application accordingly, with a copy of the order to be provided dasti, attested under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.