ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, Learned Additional Solicitor- General, for the respondents.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are challenging the search and seizure conducted on 17.10.2022 and consequential panchanamas contrary to the Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for brevity ‘PMLA’).

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.1-Company established in the year 2013 and commenced its business from October, 2016 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors of the petitioner No.1-Company. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Hyderabad registered a case against one Mr.Sukesh Guptha and the officials of MMTC for defrauding M/s MMTC Limited in purchase bullion under buyer’s credit scheme in F.I.R.No.RC01/(A)/2013 dared 03.01.2013 and also filed charge sheet No.25/2014 dated 27.11.2014. The petitioner No.1 being independent company, neither the petitioner No.1-company nor its directors are related to the alleged offences registered against Mr.Sukesh Guptha and others. The respondents assuming that there was connection between the petitioners and the above offences, have conducted search in the year 2019 at the premises of the petitioner No.1 company and even at the residence of petitioners No.2 to 4 and has not found any relevant documents and also has not seized any cash, gold or jewellery.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner No.1 Company is an independent company and the father of the petitioner No.2 i.e. Mr.Anurag Gupta is never the Director of the petitioner No.1 Company. The petitioner No.1 company is not the benami entity of Mr.Anurag Gupta. The Central Bureau of Investigation after due process and investigation did not make Mr.Anurag Gupta as accused in the offences in charge sheet No.25/21014 dated 27.11.2014.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the search warrant dated 17.10.2022 was only shown and signatures were forcefully taken and the petitioners could not read the contents of the search warrant. The respondents failed to provide the details of the date and time for the recording of the ‘reasons to believe’ as per the Section 17 (1) of PMLA, 2002 and also failed to provide the contents of the reasons and further the respondents also failed to provide the dispatch details of the postal acknowledgment through which the reasons were communicated and failed to meet the mandatory provisions of Secton-17 of PML Act. The Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 by virtue of the full bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are attacking the impugned action of the respondents, mainly two grounds viz., (i) the reasons are to be recorded in writing before issuing search warrant and (ii) the reasons are to be communicated immediately after the search and seizure.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, relied upon the following judgements:

1. Opto Circuit India Limited Vs. Axis bank and others, (2021) 6 SCC 707

2. M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd & Another Vs. Enforcement Directorate & and others, Judgment of Calcutta High Court in WPA No.17454 of 2022 dt.27.03.2019

3. The State of Maharashtra Vs. B.B.Kothavade, 1982 SCC-Online-232

4. Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Director, FPA-PMLA-2328/MUM/2018

5. CIT, West Bengal-III and others Vs. Oriental Rubber Works and batch (1984), (1984) 1 SCC 700

6. Vijay Madan LalChoudary and others Vs. Union of India, 2022 (SCC) online 929

8. Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, the Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, submits that the writ petition filed by the