2022 (12) TMI 1150 - HC - Money Laundering

Validity of summons issued - money laundering - proceeds of crime - process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in nature of inquiry against the proceeds of crime or investigation in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution - authorities under the PMLA are police officers or not - HELD THAT - The record reflects that the sole prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition was to quash the summons dated 26th of July, 2022 and 12 th of August, 2022. These summons were issued for the limited purpose seeking appearance of the petitioner before E.D. on the given date. The summon for appearing on 26th of July, 2022 contains the summon No. PMLA/SUMMON/HIU2/2022/616 and the summon dated 12th of August, 2022 contains a different summon No. PMLA/SUMMON/HIU2/2022/663 . These summons were issued in connection with F.No. ECIR/17/HUI/2020. The summons were in terms of Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA related to powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence etc. Sub-Section 2 of Section 50 empowers the specified officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under the Act. There is no further direction to the writ petitioner by the appellant to appear. Hence, the impugned summons have been worked out and have lost their force now. As on date, there is nothing on record indicating that the writ petitioner is further required to appear before the appellant in terms of Section 50 of PMLA. Thus, nothing survives in the pending writ petition. In fact, by way of interim relief, learned Single Judge had granted the final relief to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition has now become infructuous for all practical purposes. Nothing survives in the present writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge which has become infructuous on account of subsequent development - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of learned Single Judge to pass the order under appeal; Survivability of the writ petition due to subsequent developments.

Jurisdiction of learned Single Judge:
The appeal challenged interlocutory orders regarding summons issued under PMLA. The respondent filed a writ petition against these summons, arguing jurisdictional issues and seeking relief. The learned Single Judge directed the respondent to be questioned in Kolkata and refrained from coercive action. The appellant contended that the order was without jurisdiction, questioning the Single Judge's authority to hear matters involving police inaction. However, the Supreme Court clarified that PMLA inquiries are not police investigations, supporting the Single Judge's jurisdiction. The appellant's argument was dismissed.

Survivability of the writ petition:
The appellant argued that the writ petition became infructuous due to subsequent developments, as the respondent had already appeared before the authorities in compliance with the Single Judge's order. The summons had lost their force, rendering the petition moot. The appellant also raised concerns about false declarations in the petition regarding citizenship, but these issues became academic given the developments. The Single Judge's order for no coercive action was also considered moot. The Court found that nothing remained in the writ petition, granting permission for formal disposal by the Single Judge.

In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta addressed the jurisdictional challenges raised by the appellant regarding the Single Judge's order and the survivability of the writ petition due to subsequent developments. The Court upheld the Single Judge's jurisdiction in the matter and determined that the petition had become infructuous, allowing the appellant to seek formal disposal from the Single Judge.