Money-laundering summons and arrest under PMLA upheld where prima facie material showed possession and use of proceeds of crime.

Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, summons under Section 50(2) were treated as valid where investigation material, statements and seized records justified calling a person to explain possession and source of property, even if every summons did not disclose full crime particulars. Arrest and remand were not treated as illegal because arrest memo, grounds of arrest and Section 19 compliance were furnished, and a competent remand order is generally not amenable to habeas corpus challenge absent wholesale statutory non-compliance. The Court also accepted prima facie material showing possession, concealment and use of alleged proceeds of crime, and the fact that the property was not in the petitioner's name was not decisive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether summons issued under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were without jurisdiction or illegal for want of disclosed predicate offence and supporting material; (ii) Whether the arrest of the petitioner and the order of remand were illegal, and whether the writ could be treated as a habeas corpus challenge; (iii) Whether the subject property and related materials furnished a valid basis to treat the petitioner as involved in money-laundering under Sections 3 and 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether summons issued under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were without jurisdiction or illegal for want of disclosed predicate offence and supporting material?

Analysis: The power to summon under Section 50(2) is wide and extends to summoning any person whose attendance is considered necessary in the course of investigation or proceedings under the Act. The Court held that the summons could not be invalidated merely because some of them did not contain detailed particulars of the crime or because the petitioner was asked to explain possession and source of the subject property. The material collected during investigation, including statements and seized records, was sufficient to justify issuance of summons.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summons failed and the summons were upheld in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest of the petitioner and the order of remand were illegal, and whether the writ could be treated as a habeas corpus challenge?

Analysis: An order of remand passed by a competent court is a judicial act and, as a general rule, cannot be assailed through habeas corpus. The Court recognized that habeas corpus may lie where mandatory statutory safeguards are wholly ignored, but held that no such case was made out here. The grounds of arrest, arrest memo and related compliance under Section 19 were furnished, and subsequent remand orders were not all challenged. The arrest was thus tested against the statutory requirement of reason to believe and was found supported by prima facie material.

Conclusion: The arrest and remand were not held illegal, and the habeas corpus-style challenge was rejected in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): Whether the subject property and related materials furnished a valid basis to treat the petitioner as involved in money-laundering under Sections 3 and 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002?

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that money-laundering is an independent offence and that continued possession, concealment, acquisition or use of proceeds of crime can constitute a continuing offence. On the material placed, including the survey, seized revenue records, statements recorded under Section 50, WhatsApp chats and the investigation into forged land records, the Court held that there was prima facie material connecting the petitioner with possession and use of the subject property and with the alleged process of laundering. The absence of the property in the petitioner's name was held not decisive in view of the broader statutory definition and the nature of the alleged conduct.

Conclusion: The Court found sufficient prima facie material to justify the PMLA action and rejected the petitioner's challenge in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit; the impugned summons, arrest-related action and remand challenge did not warrant interference, and the petitioner was left to pursue any other statutory remedies available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, money-laundering is an independent and continuing offence, and where prima facie material shows possession, concealment or use of proceeds of crime, the authorities may lawfully issue summons, arrest on recorded reason to believe, and proceed notwithstanding that the property is not standing in the accused's name.

---