Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, during an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the competent authority had power to summon the petitioner and require production of records, and whether the writ petition challenging such summons was liable to be entertained.
Analysis: The summons was issued in the course of an investigation initiated on the basis of registered crimes and an ECIR. The challenge that no summons could be issued until filing of a final report in the criminal cases was rejected, as the statutory power under Section 50(2) authorises the competent authority to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce records during any investigation or proceeding under the Act. The Court distinguished the earlier decision relied on by the petitioner, noting that it dealt with attachment of property and the scope of Section 5(1) as it then stood, whereas the present case concerned investigative summons and not attachment. It was also held that the petitioner's objection under Articles 14 and 21 did not invalidate the statutory power exercised during investigation.
Conclusion: The summons was held to be within jurisdiction and the writ petition failed.