Preliminary PMLA proceedings may continue with summons and freezing action, while women retain CrPC procedural protection where consistent with the Act.

At the preliminary stage of proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, authorities may proceed on collected material to investigate, issue summons under Section 50, and freeze accounts under the Act's statutory framework, without first completing the procedural steps urged under Sections 5 and 17. The challenge to such inquiry-stage action was therefore rejected as premature, while remaining subject to the Act's safeguards and later adjudication. The Court also held that Section 65 brings in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so far as not inconsistent with the Act, and recognised that the procedural protection available to women under Section 160 of the Code applies in appropriate cases.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, at the preliminary stage of proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the authorities could investigate, summon persons, and freeze accounts without first completing the procedural steps urged by the petitioners under Sections 5 and 17 of that Act. (ii) Whether a woman summoned in such proceedings was entitled to the protection of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by virtue of Section 65 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether, at the preliminary stage of proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the authorities could investigate, summon persons, and freeze accounts without first completing the procedural steps urged by the petitioners under Sections 5 and 17 of that Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 distinguishes between preliminary inquiry, attachment, adjudication, and trial. Section 5 contemplates provisional attachment subject to safeguards, while Section 17 authorises search, seizure, and freezing orders where seizure is not practicable. The Court held that the provisions relied upon by the petitioners did not bar the authorities from proceeding at the inquiry stage on the basis of material already collected, and that the summons issued under Section 50 were within the powers of the Assistant Director. The Court also accepted that the powers under the Act are to be read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through Section 65, and that the challenge at the threshold was premature.

Conclusion: The challenge to the inquiry, summons, and freezing action was rejected, save to the limited extent that the proceedings remained subject to the statutory safeguards and further adjudication under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether a woman summoned in such proceedings was entitled to the protection of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by virtue of Section 65 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 65 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable to proceedings under the Act so far as they are not inconsistent with the Act. The Court held that the safeguards available to women under the Code do not conflict with the scheme of the Act and therefore can be invoked in appropriate cases. On that basis, the Court recognised that the woman petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the relevant procedural protection at the threshold.

Conclusion: The woman petitioner was held entitled to the protection of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the extent applicable.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on the principal challenge to the Enforcement Directorate proceedings, but limited procedural protection was recognised in favour of the woman petitioner, resulting in only partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: At the preliminary stage of proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, investigation and freezing action may proceed with the aid of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the procedural protections available to women under that Code remain applicable through Section 65 unless inconsistent with the Act.

---