RAJENDRA YADAV SON OF LATE BASUDEO YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners seek quashing of summons dated 31.01.2014 issued by the Assistant Director, Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Patna in File Nos. PTZO/05/2013/373, PTZO/05/2013/266, PTZO/05/2013/318, PTZO/05/2013/369 and PTZO/05/2013/265 respectively under Sec. 50(2) and (3) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

(2.) It has firstly been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that issuance of summons under Sec. 50(2) and (3) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without institution of a substantive case is illegal. The further submission is that even though the Counter-Affidavit states that a case has been instituted but when no details have been given the averment is not reliable. In the alternative he argues that in case a substantive case has been instituted it would be against the spirit of Art. 20(3) Constitution of India to summon them. He relies on the decision of Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani & Anr reported in AIR 1978 SC 1025 wherein the Honble Supreme Court had cautioned against questioning an accused which would have the tendency to incriminate him. 03.

(3.) The further objection is that the documents which have been mentioned in the summons are already with the concerned Authority and, therefore, there was no reason for them to be summoned. The apprehension of the Petitioners is that on their appearance they would be compelled to give a confession, thereafter prosecuted, which is the general practice in Bihar.