PMLA summons and investigative interference: no blanket restraint absent mala fides, but limited counsel access during questioning allowed.

A challenge to summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was rejected because the materials did not show legal or factual mala fides, jurisdictional error, or abuse of power, and the court found no basis to stop an ongoing investigation or grant blanket no-coercive relief. The non-supply of the ECIR, the timing of the summons, and allegations of political vendetta were held insufficient on the pleaded facts. The court also noted that arrest under section 19 had not arisen and that the applicant could seek statutory pre-arrest relief if needed. A limited safeguard was allowed by permitting counsel to remain visible but beyond audible range during questioning.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the prayer for restraint against coercive action could be quashed on the grounds of mala fides, abuse of power, or illegality; (ii) Whether the Applicant was entitled to a direction permitting his lawyer to remain present during questioning at a visible distance beyond audible range.

Issue (i): Whether the summons issued under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the prayer for restraint against coercive action could be quashed on the grounds of mala fides, abuse of power, or illegality.

Analysis: The summons formed part of an ongoing investigation under the Act. The Court applied the settled principle that interference with investigation is warranted only in exceptional cases, and held that the material placed did not establish legal or factual mala fides, jurisdictional error, or abuse of power. The non-supply of ECIR, the timing of summons, and the alleged political vendetta were found insufficient on the pleaded facts. The Court also noted that the stage of arrest under section 19 of the Act had not arisen, and that the Applicant could pursue the statutory remedy under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if apprehending arrest.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summons and the prayer for a no-coercive-steps order were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Applicant was entitled to a direction permitting his lawyer to remain present during questioning at a visible distance beyond audible range.

Analysis: The Court held that allowing counsel to remain within visible distance but beyond audible range would not impede the investigation and was consistent with the line of orders and decisions relied on in similar enforcement matters. The Court declined to interfere with the investigating agency's discretion as to the mode of questioning, but accepted that limited safeguard for the Applicant.

Conclusion: The prayer was allowed to the limited extent of permitting the lawyer's presence at a visible distance beyond audible range.

Final Conclusion: The application failed substantially, but a limited safeguard concerning the presence of counsel during questioning was granted, while all other substantive reliefs were refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts should not interdict a lawful ongoing investigation or issue blanket protective directions absent exceptional facts showing mala fides, illegality, or abuse of power; however, a limited procedural safeguard for counsel's presence may be granted where it does not obstruct the investigation.

---