PMLA summons and ECIR disclosure: no prior right to receive the ECIR before appearing in investigation.

A person summoned during a PMLA investigation under Section 50 has no enforceable right to prior supply of the ECIR before appearing or producing documents. The provision gives authorised officers power to summon any person for evidence or records, and the PMLA operates as a special statute with its own enforcement framework. The accused-oriented disclosure regime under the CrPC does not create a pre-summons entitlement to the ECIR at the investigation stage. In the absence of demonstrated prejudice, summons for attendance and production of material remain valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person summoned during investigation under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled, as a matter of right, to prior supply of the ECIR and whether the summons issued for production of documents and giving of evidence are liable to be quashed for want of such supply.

Analysis: The investigation had commenced on the basis of an ECIR recorded after the scheduled offence, and the summons were issued in the course of inquiry under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. That provision expressly empowers the Director and other authorised officers to summon any person to give evidence or produce records and requires attendance, truthfulness, and production of documents. Proceedings under sub-sections (2) and (3) are deemed to be judicial proceedings. The Court treated the Act as a special statute containing its own enforcement machinery and held that, at the investigation stage, the person summoned is not automatically an accused. It further held that the Code of Criminal Procedure regime for supply of police papers to an accused after court process does not create a right to pre-investigation supply of the ECIR under the PMLA. On the materials before it, the Court found no legal requirement that the ECIR must be furnished before appearance in response to summons, and no prejudice sufficient to invalidate the summons was established.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to prior supply of the ECIR as a matter of right, and the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summons failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed because the investigation under the PMLA could proceed without prior disclosure of the ECIR at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 during investigation has no enforceable right to pre-summons supply of the ECIR, and the statutory power to summon, examine, and require production of records is not defeated by reference to the accused-oriented disclosure regime under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---