The Allahabad High Court lashed against the Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) on not providing substance accusation to summoned person and commented that the Court is not inclined to promote culture of sealed covers in judicial proceedings.
The writ petition has been filed raising that the summons have been issued are deliberate abuse of authority and manifest violation of law in the manner in which respondent is conducting investigation raising serious apprehension both about the veracity and purpose of the investigation which investigation appears to be a tool for propaganda than any serious or sincere endeavour to inquire facts and affix responsibility.
It was vehemently submitted by the applicant that the instant case is an example wherein the authority vested in State has been abused and exploited by the State Authorities. The two ECIRs lodged subsequently cannot be contemplated to be having new cause of action as copy of the same has never been provided to the petitioner and once in the identical matter the allegations have been investigated and complaint has been filed the department is not having any power to open a denovo investigation on the same set of allegations/ facts and thus lodging of the successful ECIRs are sheer abuse of power conferred upon Public Authority by the statute.
The counsel for the ED contended that the instant writ petition/ application is premature and has been filed only on the issuance of summons issued under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. and the same does not give rise to any cause of action and is an abuse of legal process. Unless and until the adjudicatory process starts on the filing of complaint there can be no interference with the statutory responsibilities vested under the P.M.L.A. for investigation.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed that “This Court is not inclined to promote the culture of sealed covers in judicial proceedings and this aspect of the matter, as to whether the ED in each and every case may refuse to provide the copy of ECIR to an accused person or even to a witness, may be deliberated in depth by this Court in an appropriate case, but suffice is to say that if there is nothing extra ordinary or special , in normal course, a person summoned by the ED in whatever capacity is required to get, at least the substance of accusation if not the copy of ECIR, so he can prepare himself accordingly or may also collect relevant documents to answer the questions which may be put by the ED when interrogating the person summoned.”
“The Courts cannot presume that what possible actions could be taken by the competent authorities at this or that stage, even before the completion of the investigation. Thus, this Court is of a strong opinion that interference at this stage in respect of the facts and the circumstances of the present case on hand, is certainly unwarranted. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the petitioner himself is not aware as to whether he is being summoned under Section 50 of PMLA as an accused or as a witness, as already an ECIR was registered against him. The Directorate of Enforcement has not filed any complaint against the petitioner and he is yet not an accused in the present ECIR,S and it cannot be said at this uncertain stage that Directorate of Enforcement is identifying the petitioner as an accused, in absence of any formal accusation to this effect” the Court noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
