Compliance with summons under PMLA is mandatory unless issued by an incompetent authority or with allegations of malafides; courts should not interfere at the summons stage.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The Criminal Original Petition has been instituted challenging the summon issued by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Dimapur Sub-Zonal Office, Guwahati under Section 50 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA').

2. Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/Bank responded to the summon earlier issued on 13.09.2024 and the Bank representatives appeared before the competent Authority of Enforcement Directorate and placed the details with reference to the deposit made by the accused person in the money laundering case.

3. The Bank representatives appeared on 22.10.2024 and they are ready and willing to cooperate for the investigation of the money laundering offense, if any. Meanwhile, certain Court orders in civil litigations are also produced and that prompted the Bank to file the present petition, since the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner/Bank is now directed to appear before the Enforcement Directorate through the impugned summons.

4. Mr.N.Ramesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would oppose by stating that the investigation into the offences of money laundering is in progress. A provisional attachment order in the present case was issued by the competent Authority in proceeding dated 09.02.2023. The adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment in proceeding dated 02.08.2023 under Section 8 of PMLA. However, the petitioner/Bank has wrongfully released the amount to the tune of Rs.10,92,52,102/-, despite the fact that the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached the said amount.

5. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the money was released pursuant to the directions issued the Bombay Court and the said money is deposited in a dedicated account and not been released in favour of any person. Therefore, it is for the investigating Officer of the Enforcement Directorate to verify and initiate appropriate action. It is contended that the petitioner will appear meanwhile and place all the records.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further contend that the impugned summon has been issued by the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, Guwahati Zone. Therefore, the present petition filed before the Madras High Court is without jurisdiction. In this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 03.11.2022 in W.P.No.28848 of 2022 wherein, the Court made the following observations:

"9. We are afraid that in the facts and circumstances of this case, seizure and recovery of the articles from the premises of the petitioner in Chennai, cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court because, the investigation by the CBI as well by the Enforcement Directorate is being held at New Delhi and the search and seizure is the effect of the investigation and not the cause of the investigation."

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case relied on by the Special Public Prosecutor is distinguishable.

8. However, beyond the said ground raised, we are of the considered opinion that no petition to quash the summon is entertainable, unless the said summon has been issued by an incompetent Authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of malafides are raised against the Authority, who issued the summon. Even in such circumstances, the Authority against whom the allegations of malafides are raised must be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In all other circumstances, the person, who received the summon is expected to appear before the competent Authority and place the records or defend his case, as the case may be.

9. Section 50 (2) and (3) of PMLA reads as under:

"(2) The Director, Additional