The Enforcement Directorate is not required to disclose details of the predicate offence for summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, but should provide enough context for cooperation.

For the E.D. : Mr. Arijit Chakraborty. Adv., Mr. Debsoumya Basak, Adv, Heard On : 08.07.2025 Judgement On : 08.07.2025 Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the search authorization bearing no. 93 of 2025 dated 11.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the premises/address for which the permission relating to search/seizure was granted did not relate to the address where the Enforcement Directorate exercised their powers.

Inspite of not being authorized, the Enforcement Directorate carried out the search and seizure which is per se illegal.

The petitioner further contends that the predicate offence for the purpose of which the investigation is being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate was not made known to him, neither the search and seizure was legally carried out at the behest of the Enforcement Directorate and as such petitioner prays for return of the seized cash which he claims to be Rs.

9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Only).

Prayers have been advanced also for not taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate/respondent has submitted that the writ petition has been preferred after three summons were issued by the Enforcement Directorate and the same was not responded by the petitioner. The said summons for appearance were dated 14.06.2025, 19.06.2025 and 24.06.2025.

Attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the file number which has been referred to in the summons being ‘F.No. : KLZO-I/10/2023’ is the basis on which the investigation is carried out. It has also been contended that after the search and seizure was conducted, information/intimation was also sent to the adjudicating authority.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court ( Ankur Aggarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement ), wherein according to the learned advocate it has been held that if summons are issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 50 of the PMLA,2002 for securing the presence/appearance of an individual concerned, at least some sort of reference/detail of the predicate offence/case must have been indicated so that the person concerned could appear before the authority with complete details.

I have considered the submissions of the Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner as well as that of the Enforcement Directorate. Before dealing with the grievance of the parties it would be appropriate to refer in respect of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary -versus- Union of India , reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1. While dealing with the issue relating to uploading of ECIR the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it optional for the Enforcement Directorate and distinguished the same from FIR. Paragraphs 376, 382.26 and 382.27 of the said case which are relevant for deciding the present case reads as follows:-

“376. It is true that the ED Manual may be an internal document for departmental use and in the nature of set of administrative orders. It is equally true that the accused or for that matter common public may not be entitled to have access to such administrative instructions being highly confidential and dealing with complex issues concerning mode and manner of investigation, for internal guidance of officers of ED. It is also correct to say that there is no such requirement under the 2002 Act or for that matter, that there is nothing like investigation of a crime of money laundering as per the scheme of the 2002 Act. The investigation, however, is to track the property being proceeds of crime and to attach the same for being dealt with under the 2002 Act. Stricto sensu, it is in the nature of an inquiry in respect of civil action of attachment. Nevertheless, since the inquiry in due course ends in identifying the offender who is involved in the process or acti