MEWA RAM JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons dtd. 20/11/2023 bearing No. PMLA/SUMMON/JPZO/2023/1024/1939 (F.No. :ECIR/JPZO/32/2023) issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Government of India requiring presence of the petitioner before him in person on 22/11/2023, i.e. today.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is a candidate of Indian National Congress in the upcoming Legislative Election, 2023 and this fact is judicially noticeable that the polling of the same is going to be held on 25/11/2023. He received a notice on 20/11/2023 issued by the Enforcement Directorate expecting his presence before the Jaipur Office on 22/11/2023. The petitioner is engrossed and elbow-deep in election campaigning and it would be onerous for him to leave campaigning in between just in order to attend the call from the office of the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement. It is further contended that it is not discernible from the notice that the presence of the petitioner is required for what purpose; it is not even clear whether he has been summoned as a witness or as an accused. If he has been summoned as a witness, then it is not decipherable as to which matter is he required to be a witness in and for what purpose has he been summoned. It is not even clear what subject matter does the matter relates to and what kind of evidence is the petitioner required to present or give in case of him being called as a witness. The matter can relate to anything from money laundering or making of false documents to misappropriation of funds, income tax evasion or any other controversy pertaining to any tax statute or for that matter, pertaining to any other statutory provision. In absence of the above piece of information, it would be very harsh and impossible for him to leave the election campaign and travel for more than 500 kms to the respondent's office for the purpose of their satisfaction rather even if he is able to somehow go and mark his presence, it would not serve any purpose or satisfy the object of their summoning because he is clueless as to what matter he is to depose in if he is being summoned as a witness or in what matter he is to defend himself as an accused or under what facts and circumstances is he facing accusations if he is being summoned as an accused. It is further contended that if the petitioner has been summoned in relation to any accusation or he is an accused, then the petitioner has a statutory as well as a fundamental right to know what is the nature of accusation against him and what is the matter in which his presence is required. For the purpose of compliance, in the least, he has to know the nature of accusation so that he may reply appropriately. He, thus, submits that looking to the feasibility, practicability and present difficult situation, want of his presence at the office of the respondent on 22/11/2023 be dispensed with.

(3.) Per contra, Shri B.P. Bohra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the notice is under statutory proforma. The matter is pending inquiry before the Directorate and many things are required to be kept in secrecy and the same could not be disclosed to any one. He contends that the investigation of this case is underway and for the purpose of completion, the presence of the petitioner is required. Although he agrees that due to present election on 25/11/2023, the difficulty on part of the petitioner is comprehensible.