Power of competent authority to summon petitioner, impugned in this writ petition is traceable to Section 50(2) of Act 2002.

1. This writ petition is instituted by the petitioner with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in issuing summons dated 11.12.2013 to the petitioner and registering ECIR/4/420/2013/VPK/2897 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, by holding that the respondents 2 and 3 have no authority or jurisdiction to issue summons and consequently set aside the same.

2. Petitioner was a Director of M/s.Maithri Plantations and Horticulture Private Limited and M/s. Maithri Realtors India Private Limited. Petitioner avers that he negotiated with the companies and resigned from both the companies. Accordingly, an agreement was executed on 02.11.2012 with the concerned Managing Directors and Directors of both the companies separately. Petitioner approached the Registrar of Companies and got the necessary entries in the registers of companies. The petitioner avers that he has no relation with both companies after 02.11.2012. While so, several crimes were registered at various places in the State against the companies and Directors of the companies. In Crime No.72 of 2013 on the file of Ongole I Town Police Station, petitioner was shown as Accused No.2, in Crime No.162 of 2013 on the file of P.S. Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool District, he was shown as Accused No.4; and in Crime No.139 of 2013 on the file of Nuzvid Town Police Station, Krishna District, he was shown as accused No.4. Petitioner further avers that respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued summons dated 11.12.2013 directing the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent on 20.12.2013 along with relevant documents. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the third respondent on the said date. Petitioner was directed to appear again after fifteen days. Though petitioner appeared before the third respondent as directed by him, petitioner challenges the order dated 11.12.2013 directing him to appear before the third respondent in this writ petition.

3. Counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent. The stand of the third respondent is provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002), have application only when there is an order of seizure of properties, whereas in the instant case, there is no such seizure. It is further contended that as per second proviso to Section 5(1)(b), power is vested to seize property if the conditions provided therein are fulfilled. It is, thus, contended that even without final report as mandated by Section 173 of Cr.P.c., or filing of complaint before the Magistrate or Court, property can be seized. It is further contended that according to Section 50(2) of the Act, 2002, third respondent has power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under the Act. Petitioner was the Director of M/s.Sri Nakshthra Builders and Developers India Private Limited, during the relevant time and, therefore, petitioner was summoned only to ascertain the truth in the process of investigation into the allegations of violations of the Act, 2002 and such action of the respondents 2 and 3 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and, therefore, it is not illegal.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submissions. Learned Standing counsel Sri N.Harinath appeared on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3.

5. Learned senior counsel mounted the challenge on the impugned decision of respondents 2 and 3 summoning him for enquiry by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.11459 of 2011, dated 29.01.2012. Learned senior counsel contended that this Court held in the above case that only on the report filed b