2022 (11) TMI 51 - HC - Money Laundering

Validity of summons issued by the Assistant Director, PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Jaipur - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned summons dated 31.08.2022, it reveals that the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Investigating Officer on 15.09.2022 - A conjoint reading of sub Section (1) (b) (2) of Section 50 of the Act of 2002 makes it abundantly clear that it is wide enough to authorise and empower the Director or the Additional Director (as the case may be) to issue a summons to a person. Mere fact that the reply has been filed and the requisite documents as required in first summons have been furnished, does not absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to honour the summons. Nor does it take away right of the authorised officer to call upon the petitioner to appear before him - Petitioner s argument that the summons issued to the petitioner which does not append the schedule and list of documents is illegal, is preposterous. When the authorised officer needs only petitioner s presence, it is not necessary to append the list of documents and the schedule - Petitioner simply wants to avoid summons by way of taking hyper technical pleas, which too have no substance. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned summons dated 31.08.2022 - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to summons under Section 482 of CrPC regarding Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) provisions and Rules of 2005.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges the summons issued by the Assistant Director under the PMLA. The petitioner argues the summons is illegal and contrary to Section 50 of the Act of 2002 and the Rules of 2005.

2. The petitioner's counsel points out that Rule 11 of the Rules of 2005 mandates the summons to be in a specific format (Form V) with details of the reason for the notice and documents to be produced, which the impugned summons lacks.

3. The counsel argues that the second summons to the petitioner, after a detailed reply to the first summons by the petitioner's brother, is arbitrary and should be quashed.

4. The court observes that the Director has the power to issue summons under Section 50 of the Act of 2002, even if documents were submitted earlier, and the petitioner is obligated to comply with the summons.

5. It is clarified that if the officer does not require specific documents or plans to examine the petitioner, the list of documents in the summons can be omitted, as per the requirements of the situation.

6. The court dismisses the argument that the summons is illegal due to the absence of a document list, stating that hyper-technical pleas to avoid summons hold no merit.

7. The judgment concludes that there is no illegality in the impugned summons, and the writ petition is dismissed along with the disposal of the stay application.