2020 (12) TMI 703 - HC - Money Laundering

Direction to the 2nd respondent to refrain from detaining the petitioner beyond reasonable time and to permit the presence of a legal practitioner during questioning - Summon order - Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - There are substantial force in the preliminary objection regarding maintainability raised by the learned ASG. Exhibit P11 summons is issued under Section 50(2) of the Act. A person issued with summons is bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as the officer issuing the summons directs, and is bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined or makes statements and to produce such documents as may be required. As held by the Apex Court in KIRIT SHRIMANKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2014 (12) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT , no cause of action arises merely for reason of a person being called upon to state the truth or to make statements and produce documents. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that the cause of action is based on the repeated summoning of the petitioner in spite of his illness, which gave rise to the reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will be forced to give statements against his will. There are no basis for such apprehension inasmuch as the date for appearance was changed by the 2nd respondent on three occasions, acceding to the request made by the petitioner. Having commenced an investigation or proceeding, the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to suit the petitioner's convenience - As held by the Apex Court in DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI VERSUS ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA 1997 (11) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT , it is not for this Court to monitor the investigation and to decide the venue, the timings, the questions and the manner of questioning. Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Challenge against the manner of exercising power to issue summons by Enforcement Directorate under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Apprehension of petitioner regarding prolonged detention and coercion to give statements against will.
3. Request for direction to refrain from detaining petitioner beyond reasonable time and permit presence of legal practitioner during questioning.
4. Preliminary objection raised on maintainability of the writ petition by Additional Solicitor General.

Issue 1: Challenge against the manner of exercising power to issue summons
The petitioner, an Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala, challenged the repeated summoning by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's counsel argued that the continuous summoning, despite the petitioner's ailments and weak physical condition, indicated arbitrariness and mala fides. The petitioner feared being detained for long hours and coerced into giving statements against his will, impacting his health adversely. The counsel requested a direction to limit the questioning to a reasonable period.

Issue 2: Apprehension of petitioner regarding prolonged detention and coercion
The petitioner expressed apprehension that he would be detained for long hours and forced to provide statements against his will during questioning by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner sought relief to prevent prolonged detention and coercion, emphasizing the potential adverse impact on his health due to continuous interrogation.

Issue 3: Request for direction to refrain from detaining petitioner beyond reasonable time
The petitioner requested a direction to the Enforcement Directorate to refrain from detaining him beyond a reasonable time and to allow the presence of a legal practitioner during questioning. The petitioner's plea aimed to safeguard his rights and ensure a fair and just process during the investigation.

Issue 4: Preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition
The Additional Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the mere issuance of summons under Section 50 of the Act did not give rise to a cause of action. Citing legal precedents, the objection contended that interference at the investigation stage should be limited, and the court should not monitor the investigation processes unless there is a violation of law. The court upheld the objection, stating that no cause of action arose from the summoning itself, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition challenging the repeated summoning by the Enforcement Directorate, emphasizing the limited scope of interference at the investigation stage. The court upheld the law enforcement agency's authority to issue summons and conduct investigations, highlighting the importance of accountability, especially for individuals in public life. The judgment underscored the need for cooperation with law enforcement agencies and the expectation of probity from those in positions of authority.

← Previous Next →