The Delhi High Court refuses to grant a copy of ECIR in a money laundering case, citing no interference with the ED's investigative process during the summons issuance stage under PMLA.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the request from Amit Katyal, an individual not accused in the land-for-job scam case, to quash the ECIR and an ED summons
Katyal also requested to prevent the ED from taking any coercive actions, such as conducting further investigations in the money laundering case against him.
He expressed concern that due to recent ED raids at his premises, he might face arrest in the ECIR if he complied with the summons for the investigation.
Furthermore, he argued that despite his cooperation in the investigation and his non-involvement in the initial offense, he was continuously summoned by the ED due to his business dealings with Lalu Prasad Yadav's family members.
The court denied the plea, emphasizing that the ED's investigation in the ECIR is ongoing, and Katyal was only called to provide certain documents related to the case.
Justice Sharma noted that Katyal had cooperated with the ED during six previous summons from March to August in the ECIR investigation. Therefore, there were no valid reasons to quash the current summon.
The court stated, "Furthermore, as established in various legal precedents as discussed earlier, this court cannot impede the investigative process at the summons issuance stage for the petitioner."
Regarding the quashing of the ECIR, the court noted that the request was premature since Katyal had not provided a copy of the ECIR, given that he did not possess it.
In this context, it is important to mention that it is not obligatory for the Directorate of Enforcement to provide a copy of the ECIR to the individual under investigation, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The petitioner has only been summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA," the court clarified.
Additionally, the court noted that the issuance of another summons under Section 50 of the PMLA did not establish a case for granting relief from coercive measures.
"It is evident from the structure of the PMLA that the authority to issue summons under Section 50 of PMLA is distinct from the power to arrest under Section 19 of PMLA. The act of summoning an individual to participate in an investigation and provide evidence or documents to the investigative agency should not be assumed to result in the person's arrest," the court affirmed.
Petitioner's legal representatives: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Bakul Jain, Ms. Sheena, Ms. Akasha Saini, Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta, and Mr. Naman Agarwal, Advocates.
TAGS: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi Senior Advocate along with Ms. Bina Gupta Mr. Gurpreet Singh Mr. Bakul Jain Ms. Sheena Ms. Akasha Saini
