TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are governed by the procedural safeguards and territorial limits in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including Sections 91, 160 and 161. (ii) Whether Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India or renders the summons to attend in New Delhi illegal. (iii) Whether the complaint and cognizance order against the second appellant for non-compliance with summons were illegal.
Issue (i): Whether summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are governed by the procedural safeguards and territorial limits in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including Sections 91, 160 and 161.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as a special and self-contained code with overriding effect. Section 71 gives the Act primacy over inconsistent laws, while Section 65 applies the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only so far as it is not inconsistent with the Act. Section 50 authorises summoning for evidence and documents in the course of inquiry, and Rule 11 of the 2005 Rules prescribes the form and mode of summons. The Court held that this regime is inconsistent with the police-investigation framework under Sections 160 and 161 and also displaces Section 91 for summons under the Act.
Conclusion: The procedural safeguards and territorial limitations urged from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not control summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (ii): Whether Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 violates Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India or renders the summons to attend in New Delhi illegal.
Analysis: The Court reiterated that a summons under Section 50 is issued during inquiry into proceeds of crime and is not a prosecution-stage investigation in the police sense. A person summoned may be required to attend, give evidence and produce records, but that process does not amount to testimonial compulsion at the summons stage. The Court also held that the statutory power is gender-neutral and that no separate procedural protection for women can be read into Section 50. On territorial objection, the Court found sufficient nexus with Delhi on the facts and held that the summons to attend there was not illegal.
Conclusion: Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not unconstitutional on the grounds urged, and the summons to attend in New Delhi was upheld.
Issue (iii): Whether the complaint and cognizance order against the second appellant for non-compliance with summons were illegal.
Analysis: Non-compliance with a lawful summons under Section 50 attracts the consequences contemplated by Section 63(4), including liability to proceed under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found no illegality in the complaint or in the cognizance and summoning orders passed by the criminal court, and declined to express any opinion on the merits of the pending complaint itself.
Conclusion: The complaint and cognizance orders were not found illegal.
Final Conclusion: The special procedure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 governs summons and related proceedings, and the challenges to the impugned summons and consequential orders failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute contains its own summons and inquiry mechanism with overriding effect, the general procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 yield to the extent of inconsistency, and a lawful summons issued in aid of inquiry under the special statute cannot be invalidated by importing police-investigation rules or territorial restrictions from the Code.
TaxTMI 
