PMLA summons and non-bailable warrant principles upheld where the record showed evasion of investigative process.

The Court rejected the objection to maintainability where the petition was supported by an affidavit of the petitioner's power of attorney holder, holding that the authority to sign and file the petition and affidavit was valid on the facts. It further held that, in an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Enforcement Directorate may summon any necessary person under Section 50, and a non-bailable warrant may issue in aid of investigation where the record shows evasion of process in a non-bailable offence. The petitioner's objections based on foreign residence, service, and absence of personal arraignment were rejected, and the warrant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition, supported by an affidavit of the petitioner's power of attorney holder, was not maintainable. (ii) Whether the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the petition, supported by an affidavit of the petitioner's power of attorney holder, was not maintainable.

Analysis: The objection was rejected. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon to contend that an accused must appear personally, noting that the cited cases turned on different facts and did not bar every petition filed through an attorney. On the facts, the power of attorney authorised the deponent to sign and file the petition and accompanying affidavit, and no legal impediment was shown to its acceptance.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the preliminary objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The Court held that the Enforcement Directorate is empowered to summon any person under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that a person so summoned is bound to attend and make a truthful statement. The Court further held that, where material indicates evasion of process in a non-bailable offence, a warrant may be issued in aid of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the facts, the summons, the investigation material, and the petitioner's conduct justified the resort to a non-bailable warrant, and the objections based on foreign residence, service procedure, and alleged absence of personal arraignment were rejected.

Conclusion: The non-bailable warrant was upheld and no ground existed for interference.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the warrant was unsuccessful, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Enforcement Directorate may summon any person whose attendance is necessary, and a court may issue a non-bailable warrant in aid of investigation where the person evades the process of law and the record discloses sufficient material for such coercive process.

---