JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners, three in number, who have been served with summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 (hereinafter ‘PMLA’ for short) for their appearance and recording of statements, have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to declare the proceedings initiated by the respondents under PMLA without jurisdiction and non-est in the eye of law.

2. The writ petition is primarily based on the ground that the designated authority under PMLA has no jurisdiction, power or authority to initiate any proceedings under PMLA against the petitioners and issue summons under Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of PMLA. It is urged that the commission of a scheduled offence is a sine qua non for attracting the applicability of PMLA and the offences, the petitioners are sought to be charged with, being the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 RPC are not the scheduled offences enumerated in Schedule A of PMLA. The offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B RPC without predicate offence being a scheduled offence is not amenable to the jurisdiction of Enforcement Directorate. Unless it is demonstrated that the conspiracy has been hatched for commission of a scheduled offence, the provisions of PMLA would not be attracted. It is, thus, submitted that any proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of PMLA including the summons issued under Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of PMLA would be de hors the law and without jurisdiction. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the alleged offences with which the petitioners have been charged i.e. offences under Sections 406,409 and 120-B RPC are not the scheduled offences under PMLA and, therefore, for that reason also, the applicability of PMLA is ruled out and the petitioners cannot be held amenable to jurisdiction of the respondents. The writ petition proceeds precisely on these two issues raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. Per contra, the respondents have contested the writ petition on the ground that Section 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) is pari materia and corresponds to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and, therefore, when read with Sections 1(2) and 2(2) of PMLA would fall under Part A, Paragraph I of the schedule of offences under PMLA. It is submitted that the statements of co-accused recorded under Sections 52(2) and 52 (3) of PMLA during the course of investigation clearly revealed that the petitioners were involved in the act of money-laundering and siphoning of funds of J&K Cricket Association in furtherance of conspiracy hatched between the petitioners and the co-accused. The respondents in their reply affidavit have given the account of evidences collected during the investigation of Enforcement Case Information Report No. ECIR/01/SRZO/2018 dated 28.12.2018 registered by the respondents in this regard.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to firstly set out the relevant provisions of PMLA insofar as these are germane to the decision of the questions raised in this petition.

5. Sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section 50 of PMLA confers upon the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director, powers 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 proceedings under PMLA and all such persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through their authorized agents and state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents as may be required. It may be appropriate to reproduce Sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section 50 of PMLA which read thus:

“(2)The Di