The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's decision to dismiss the petition was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the precedents related to taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate.

Pratibha Rani, J.

1. Learned ASG has placed on record the copy of the Gazette Notification notifying that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), (in short “PMLA”) the Court of District Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma, Delhi has been designated as Special Judge, PMLA for entire National Capital Territory of Delhi.

2. The Criminal M.C. No.1452/2012 has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.4/2011 titled as Directorate of Enforcement vs. Tariq Ahmed Dar. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order does not show application of mind or taking cognizance of the matter. It also does not reflect that any summoning order was passed by the Court summoning the petitioner as an accused after recording pre-summoning evidence as required under Section 200 CrPC.

3. The impugned order dated 07.09.2011 is as under:-

Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Tarique Ahmed Dar 07.09.11

Fresh complaint u/s 44 r/w section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 received. It be checked and registered.

Present: Sh.Bipul Kumar, Ld. Spl. PP for the Directorate of Enforcement.

Accused is stated to be in Tihar Jail in case FIR Nos. 149/05, 533/06, 560/06 and 1120/05.

Production warrant be issued against the accused for 26.09.11.

(P.S. Teji)

Special Judge – PMLA

DJ& ASJ (I/C), East

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi/07.09.11

3. Mr.Satish Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has annexed the copy of the complaint alongwith his petition which would reflect that there is not even a prayer by the complainant seeking exemption in the matter being public servant or request that he be represented in the complaint through State. There is not even a prayer in the entire complaint for summoning of the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Learned counsel has also submitted that although while taking cognizance, no specific format of the order to be passed by the Court is prescribed but from the order passed, it must be reflected that the Court has exercised its mind to the facts of the case and then order for summoning of the accused. In the instant case, there is no summoning order. The petitioner was not even in custody in the complaint case. The Court should have ordered for issuance of summons to the accused at his address. It is only on getting report on the summons of the accused that he is in custody that the Court could issue production warrants to secure his presence. While issuing production warrant, it is not even mentioned as to in what capacity he has been asked to appear before the Court i.e. whether as an accused or as a witness.

4. Mr.Satish Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that a bare reading of the impugned order reflects that when the complaint was filed before the learned Special Judge-PMLA, no pre-summoning evidence was recorded by the Court. Even there is no specific order passed by learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence, as Court of the original jurisdiction. Further he also did not pass any order summoning the petitioner as an accused. Not only that, learned Special Judge has also not passed any specific order granting exemption to the complainant/public servant from appearance before the Court. In the absence of any specific order taking cognizance of the offence by learned Special Judge, order dated 07.09.2011 may be set aside and the proceedings arising out of complaint case No.4/2011 titled as Enforcement Directorate vs. Tariq Ahmed Dar may be quashed.

5. On behalf of State, Mr.Rajeev Mehra, learned ASG has submitted that the title of the complaint itself shows that it is by Mr.Prabhakant, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement. The very first paragraph of the complaint contains the necessary averments that the complaina