IMPORTANT POINT
The powers of the Directorate of Enforcement to issue summons under Section 50 of PMLA empower them to summon any person for the purpose of collecting information or evidence, and the protection under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution is available to a person who is accused of any offence.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and/or seeking setting aside the ECIR/17/HIU/2020 and the summons dated 21.03.2023 issued by the respondent summoning the petitioner to appear at New Delhi on 29.03.2023 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (`PMLA') and further directing and issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to not summon the petitioner to New Delhi in case arising out of ECIR/17/HIU/2020 registered by the respondent on 28.11.2020.

BACKGROUND FACTS: THE PROSECUTION'S CASE

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the FIR/RC bearing no. RC0102020A0022 dated 27.11.2020 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI'), ACB, Kolkata for the commission of offences under Sections 120B/409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act') for illegal excavation and theft of coal from the leasehold area of Eastern Coalfield Ltd. ('ECL') in active connivance with officials of ECL, CISF, Indian Railways and concerned other departments, against the following accused persons: (a) Anup Majee @ Lala, (b) Amit Kumar Dhar, the then GM, Kunustoria Area, ECL (Eastern Coalfield Ltd), (c) Jayesh Chandra Rai, General Manager, ECL, Kajora Area, (d) Tamnay Das, Chief of Security, ECL, Asansol, (e) Dhananjay Rai, Area Security Inspector, Kunustoria, ECL (f) Debashish Mukherjee, Security-in-charge, Kajora Area, (g) Other public servants and private persons.

3. It is stated that since the offences mentioned in the said FIR/RC were scheduled offences under PMLA, therefore, the present ECIR i.e. ECIR/17/HIU/2020 was recorded by respondent-Directorate of Enforcement on 28.11.2020 against Anup Majee and other accused persons for the commission of offences under PMLA. It is stated that during the course of investigation conducted by Directorate of Enforcement, one Vikas Mishra was arrested on 16.03.2021 and Ashok Kumar Mishra was arrested on 03.04.2021. Upon completion of investigation, prosecution complaint was filed by Directorate of Enforcement on 13.05.2021 before the Court concerned i.e. Special Judge (PMLA), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi against Vikas Mishra and Ashok Kumar Mishra. It is stated that in the scheduled offence i.e. RC0102020A0022, the CBI, ACB had filed a Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. on 19.07.2022 against Anup Majee @ Lala and 40 other accused persons before the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI), Asansol, West Bengal. A supplementary prosecution complaint was also filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 24.07.2022 before the concerned Special Judge (PMLA), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. In the course of investigation in the present ECIR, certain documents/digital evidences were shared by Income Tax Department, which had been seized during the course of search conducted by them at various premises of Anup Majee and his close associates. As per prosecution, an analysis of the said documents/digital evidences revealed that one Niraj Singh used to maintain records of proceeds of crime generated by accused persons from the criminal activity in the scheduled offence viz. illegal excavation and theft of coal from the leasehold area of ECL. Similarly, records seized from several premises of Anup Majee reflected that from July, 2018 to March, 2020 (within 21 months), proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.2742.32 crores were generated from the illegal coal mining business from various parties/entities/persons.

4. It is also stated in the reply filed by respondent that in the course of investigation, it was deemed necessary that Moloy Ghatak i.e. petitioner herein be examined. As such, for further investigation, petitioner