JUDGMENT :

The argument was heard on behalf of the petitioner which was argued by Mr. S.D.Sanjay, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, the learned vice counsel and on behalf of the Opposite Party-Enforcement Directorate (ED) Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Swati Shalini, Mr. Shivam Utkarsh, Mr. Saurav Kumar, and Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, the learned counsels and after hearing at length on that day i.e. on 26.09.2022, the judgment was reserved.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.05.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.362 of 2022 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Ranchi whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with ECIR 05/2021, corresponding to CNR-JHRN01-002561-2022, pending in the same learned court.

3. The complaint was filed under sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter to be referred to as PMLA Act, 2002, for short] alleging therein that (i) the complaint case under the PMLA Act, 2002 has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the F.I.R. registered by the C.B.I., A.C.B., Dhanbad being RC1(A)/2020-D dated 10.02.2020, (ii) that it is stated that the aforementioned F.I.R. by the C.B.I., A.C.B., Dhanbad was registered against the petitioner on the basis of one complaint filed by Amit Sarawgi alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner being ‘Insolvency Professional’ demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lacs per month from Amit Sarawgi for showing leniency in the insolvency resolution process for extending corporate insolvency resolution process from 9 months to two years and also demanded one time bribe of Rs.20 lacs from Amit Sarawgi for obtaining favourable forensic audit/valuation report from identified forensic auditor/valuer and for helping in repossession of plant/company by Amit Sarawgi and (iii) the C.B.I., A.C.B., Dhanbad after investigation of the matter filed a charge sheet on 31.12.2020 under Section 7 of the P.C.Act and therefore, the present complaint under Section 44 and 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 was initiated against the petitioner.

4. Mr. S.D.Sanjay, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the investigation under the PMLA Act was initiated vide ECIR No.KLZO/13/2020, which was based on the F.I.R No.RC1(A) of 2020 dated 10.02.2020 filed by the C.B.I., Dhanbad under section 7 of the P.C.Act against the petitioner allegedly for accepting bribe by misusing his position as a public servant. According to him, in the present case, the substantive offence is section 7 of P.C.Act which is a scheduled offence under section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA Act. He submitted that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession and after passing the examination, he became eligible to be appointed as an Insolvency Professional by the Committee of Creditors under Section 3(19) of IBC, 2016 for handling the companies under liquidation. According to him, during the course of investigation, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA Act summoning the petitioner and the petitioner fully cooperated during the investigation. He further submitted that on 03.06.2019 the petitioner consented to act as an IRP on the request of the State Bank of India. On 22.11.2019, NCLT, Kolkata, initially appointed the petitioner as an Interim Resolution Personnel (IRP) for Adi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. On 21.12.2019 the petitioner after having worked satisfactorily as per the perception of the COC, was appointed as Resolution Personnel (R.P) by the Committee of Creditors (COC). On 24.12.2019, Amit Sarawagi withdrew Rs.10 lacs cash illegally from Andhra Bank, Giridih Branch. He did not even inform the