Allegation of Illegal Search and Seizure: Calcutta HC Directs ED to issue Summons u/s 50 of PMLA [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court, in a petition challenging the illegal search and seizure conducted by enforcement Department(ED) , directed the ED to issue summons under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA), 2002.

Praveen Kumar, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition challenging the search authorization issued by the respondent no. 3. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the premises/address for which the permission relating to search/seizure was granted did not relate to the address where the Enforcement Directorate exercised their powers.

In spite of not being authorized, the Enforcement Directorate carried out the search and seizure which is per se illegal.

The petitioner further contends that the predicate offence for the purpose of which the investigation is being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate was not made known to him, neither the search and seizure was legally carried out at the behest of the Enforcement Directorate and as such petitioner prays for return of the seized cash which he claims to be Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Only).

On the other hand, advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate/respondent has submitted that the writ petition has been preferred after three summons were issued by the Enforcement Directorate and the same was not responded by the petitioner. The said summons for appearance were dated 14.06.2025, 19.06.2025 and 24.06.2025.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

Attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the file number which has been referred to in the summons being ‘F.No. : KLZO-I/10/2023’ is the basis on which the investigation is carried out. It has also been contended that after the search and seizure was conducted, information/intimation was also sent to the adjudicating authority.

The advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Ankur Aggarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement), wherein according to the advocate it has been held that if summons are issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 50 of the PMLA,2002 for securing the presence/appearance of an individual concerned, at least some sort of reference/detail of the predicate offence/case must have been indicated so that the person concerned could appear before the authority with complete details.

As such the person who has been informed cannot as a matter of right claim that the information relating to the predicate offence which led to the registration of the ECIR can be claimed as of right.

The documents which have been placed by the Enforcement Directorate also reflects that the petitioner himself has received the search warrant on 12.06.2025 at around 7.25 a.m. However, this is being inferred on the basis of a document advanced by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the authenticity of the same. This Court at this stage need not go into the details regarding the authenticity of the signature concerned which is available in the search warrant authorization dated 11.06.2025.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

So far as the summons which have been issued, the summons were in respect of a particular file number which has been referred to. So far as the issue relating to details of predicate offence is concerned, the same as a matter of right the petitioner cannot claim, although it may be informed to the petitioner as has been held by the Supreme Court as also by the Allahabad High Court.

As details of supply of copy of ECIR and the FIR relating to the predicate offence is not mandatory, but considering the fact that the purpose of the summons is to enable the petitioner to answer the queries, the petitioner must also be in a position to have knowledge regarding the background of the case as well as the genesis which led to the registration of the ECIR and the consequent search and seizure.

Since there are no summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, the single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh

directed that the Enforcement Directorate would issue fresh summons upon the petitioner granting 15 days’ time to appear before the authorities. The fresh summons, if possible, should accompany the ECIR number as well as the predicate offence which led to the registration of the ECIR.

Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that they intend to co-operate with the investigation.

As the process of investigation is in progress, at this stage, further directions of this Court are unwarranted.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates