Vijayakumar vs Assistant Director
2024 Latest Caselaw 33019 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vijayakumar vs Assistant Director on 14 November, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

                                                      2024:KER:85020
WP(C) NO. 38458 OF 2024

                                     1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

 THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1946

                          WP(C) NO. 38458 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

            VIJAYAKUMAR,
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O MUNUSAMY 3/5, RAJAMANGALAM 6TH STREET,
            VILLIVAKKAM CHENNAI - 600049


            BY ADV JOSEPH T.JOHN


RESPONDENT:

            ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
            DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
            GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOCHI ZONAL OFFICE,
            MULLASHERY KANAL ROAD WEST, PIN - 682011


            BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, SC


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      2024:KER:85020
WP(C) NO. 38458 OF 2024

                                 2



                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 summons issued

under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act

(PMLA), 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the premise

that does not contain the reasons for his presence with the

documents mentioned therein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in

spite of the infirmities in the summons, his client is prepared to

appear before the 1st respondent through an authorized agent. It

is submitted that the worsening health condition of petitioner's

father require his presence by the bedside. It is contended that, as

per Section 50(3) of the Act, the person summoned can appear

either in person or through an authorized agent.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Directorate of

Enforcement contends that on a plain reading of Section 50(3), it

is evident that the discretion to exempt the person summoned and

permit him to appear through an authorized agent is vested with

the Officer concerned.

2024:KER:85020 WP(C) NO. 38458 OF 2024

4. Having scrutinized Section 50(3) of the Act, I am in

agreement with the above contention. It is for the Officer

concerned to decide whether the person summoned should appear

in person or through an authorized agent.

The Writ petition is hence disposed of, permitting the

petitioner to seek exemption from personal appearance based on

the reasons stated in this Writ Petition and leaving it open for the

1st respondent to decide whether the petitioner can be exempted

or not.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE SPV 2024:KER:85020 WP(C) NO. 38458 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38458/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.09.2024

EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMERY OF HIS FATHER MUNUSAMY ISSUED FROM APOLLO HOSPITAL ANNAMALAIPURAM CHENNAI

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE