9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summon dated 24.9.2021. It appears that the second summon dated 25.10.2021 issued by respondent no. 2 received by the petitioner is on similar terms as in the first summon in response to which the petitioner had replied and sought for accommodation of time for his attendance and to appear before the respondent no. 2 through video conferencing or by physical appearance before the office of the respondent no. 2 in Kolkata. Thus, the petitioner is not avoiding to co-operate the respondent no. 2 into the investigation but the prayer as made on behalf of the petitioner alternatively is for ad interim order of protection which has been sought for against the respondent no. 2 from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with the said case and further to allow him to be examined or to allow him to cooperate into the investigation before the respondent no. 2 vide video conferencing or at the office of the respondent no. 2 at Kolkata. This Court is convinced that the petitioner is required by the respondent authority only for cooperating into the investigation as he is not an FIR named accused in connection with the case - Let the matter appear six weeks hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of the offence has been allegedly committed within the territory of West Bengal and a specific case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in West Bengal. My attention is invited by Mr. Siddhartha Agarwal learned senior counsel assisted by Ayan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner to the various annexures to point out that the first notice issued on 24.9.2021 was with the direction upon the petitioner to appear before the office of the respondent no. 2 on 7.10.2021 at 11.00 hours with the copies of certain documents as per the annexure A thereof and in response thereof, the petitioner sent his reply dated 7.10.2021 with the requisite information and documents. It is reflected from the said reply that the petitioner sought for time for a period of three weeks and leave to appear before the Calcutta office of the respondent no.2 or by virtual mode through video conferencing if his presence is still necessary and the petitioner further sought for the decision at the end of the respondent no. 2 on the subject to make arrangement accordingly. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the office of respondent no. 2 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, held Section 15 and the amendments made by the said notification dated June 18, 1981, to be valid and constitutional, both these appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Reliance is also placed to a decision in the case of Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 643 to contend that presumption of constitutionality is always there till the rebuttal by the person challenging the validity and invited my attention to the observation in paragraphs 41 to 46 which reads thus:- 41. That there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon the person, who attacks it is a fairly well settled proposition. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi Ors. v. State of Bihar6, this Court stated : .........The classification, it has been held, may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. The pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst other things, that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness or its discriminatory nature, he had to lay a foundation for it by setting out the facts necessary to sustain such a plea and adduce cogent and convincing evidence to make out his case, for there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account in formulating the classification of the zones and the (1964)6SCR679 prescription of the minimum standards to each zone, and where we have a rule framed with the assistance of a committee containing experts such as the one constituted under s. 3 of the Act, that presumption is strong, if not overwhelming 44. In Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi Anr. v. Mst. Ram Kali etc.9, the Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated the legal position thus : ........The presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, since it must be assumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, and its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. 45. In Pathumma Ors. v. State of Kerala Ors.10 , a seven-Judge Bench of this Court highlighted that the Legislatur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority concerned. Mr. Dastoor also points out that there is no reason for the petitioner to presume himself as an accused in connection with the case as he should not have apprehension in his mind because he is not wanted as an accused. It is only the notice or the summon which has been issued upon him for his cooperation into the investigation pending before the respondent no. 2 and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if the hearing of the case is postponed to 15th instant. This Court while considering the prayer as made on behalf of the petitioner finds that petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 as void and inoperative or being violative of Article 14, 20(3), 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought for an order of interim stay of the operation of the impugned summons dated 24.9.2021 and 25.10.2021 to restrain the respondent no. 2 from issuing any further summons under Section 50 (2) of the PMLA, 2002. It is rightly pointed out that the summon dated 24.9.2021 has already been dealt with by virtue of the reply given by the petitioner on 7.10.2021 enclosing the copies of the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is convinced that the petitioner is required by the respondent authority only for cooperating into the investigation as he is not an FIR named accused in connection with the case. That apart, this Court finds that in response to the first summon issued on 24.9.2021, the petitioner filed his reply on 7.10.2021 enclosing the documents for the information required by the respondent authority and also sought for adjournment. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate into the ongoing investigation being conducted by the respondent no. 2 in connection with ECIR/17/HIU/2020. So, the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the respondent authorities in terms of the summon by appearance before the respondent no. 2 via video conference or by physically appearing before the authority of respondent no. 2 s office at Kolkata. However, no coercive measure be taken against the petitioner in connection with the investigation in the above referred case for a period of six weeks from the date hereof. Let the matter appear six weeks hence with the direction upon the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition and reply thereto within the period of six weeks. List the matter according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
