HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No. CRL.P.No.3411 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
01. 04.05.2022 DR, J
CRL.P.No.3108 of 2022
Notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted
to take out personal notice on the 2nd respondent
through RPAD and file proof of service.
Post on 21.06.2022.
________ DR, J
I.A.No.01 of 2022
Assailing the impugned notice dated 07.04.2022 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, present criminal petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice, summoning the petitioner to appear along with the documents Annexed, before the 2nd respondent on 26.04.2022 and registering the case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is based on the complaint made by one Sanchaita Gajapati Raju, which was registered in FIR No.300 of 2019 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city; the same was numbered as C.C.No.93 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City; Based on the above charge sheet, the 2nd respondent herein registered an F.No.ECIRVKSZO 18/2022/616.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 3 of the Prevention of 2
Money Laundering Act, 2002 [ for short the Act] attract only the offence, directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, including its concealment, posessi9on, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted property or claiming as untainted property. Admittedly, the allegations made in the FIR.No.300 of 2019 dated 23.08.2019 are with regard to the properties pertaining to joint family, i.e. father of one Sri P.Viajaram Raju.
Learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of Sl.Nos.4, 5, 6,7 and 8 are pertaining to the property situated in TS No.4307/2, Block No.95 situated at Karpagam Avenue, 4th street, Sainagar, RA Puram in Mylapore Area, Chennai and it is not in dispute that the said properties are ancestral property of P.Vijayram Gajapathi Raju, when the summons are issued with regard to the particular property, which belong to the ancestral property, registration of crime under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is illegal and improper.
Learned counsel further submitted that in an identical issue, raised before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in Cr.M.P.No.1334 of 2021, dated 03.11.2021 wherein the petitioners therein have assailed the summons issued by the respondent authorities, while registering a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under the complaint. After considering the provisions of the Act, finally the Court dismissed the same; assailing the said judgment, the petitioners therein have approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Spl. Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9352 3
of 2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order :-
"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner as also grant stay of operation of the Summoning Order dated 20-5-2021 as stated above."
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner sought suspension of the summons issued under the impugned notice.
Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has opposed the contention and submitted that as per the Act, once ECIR is numbered it is not a public document and present impugned summons are issued only to procure the documents. Hence, as per Section 50 of the Act, it is to be construed as Judicial Proceedings and the petitioner has no authority to refuse the summons and he has to appear by producing the documents, which were Annexure to the notice. Further learned Standing Counsel relied on the decision passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi In Abishek Banerjee and Anr. Vs.Directorate of Enforcement1, wherein it has observed that Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the respondent-authority has power and authority regarding summons to produce documents and to give evidence. Section 50 (2) of the Act provides the authority shall have power to force attendance of any person and shall also have a power to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation.
1
2022 Livelaw (Del) 196 4
Hence, in view of the observations, the petitioner is bound to appear and produce the documents, which are summoned by the authority under Section 50 of the Act.
He further submitted that the Court has no power to entertain the petition, at the stage of investigation. Further relied on the submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General in C.M.Raveendran Vs. Union of India2, thereby requested to dismiss the case.
He further raised an objection with regard to crime registered in FIR.No.52 of 2022 for the offences punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC relating to Manasa Trust situated at Nidigattu and Annavaram villages of Bheemini (M) Visakhapatnam.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when there is an investigation pending, under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, there is no necessity to invoke the provisions of Special Enactment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and also invocation of Section 50 of the Act, and the fact of summoning any person under the said provision, also under consideration before the Apex Court in a batch of cases.
To support his contention learned counsel has filed the documents showing the batch of the petitions pending before the Supreme Court, in Spl. Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.28922 of 2011 and batch.
Replying to the summons, learned standing counsel has submitted that the issue was pending since a long time and not yet settled, since finalisation of the said issue by the Hon'ble Apex
2 (2010) 15 SC 646 5
Court, the authorities are entitled to proceed as per the provisions of the Act , thereby requested for rejection of interim order and also requested for filing counter.
Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the Annexure to the summons, this court wants to peruse the record pertaining to ECIR No.616.
Therefore, in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Spl. Leave petition No.9352 of 2021, there shall be stay of all further proceedings with regard to the summons dated 07.04.2022 and the 2nd respondent is directed to produce the material for registering ECIR No.616 before this Court, in a sealed cover, for perusal.
Post this case along with Crl.P.No.3108 of 2022.
________ DR, J
PA.
