ED Must Include Predicate Offence Details In PMLA Summons: Allahabad High Court
The case arose when petitioner was summoned by the ED, but his counsel informed the Court that the summons had been issued without mentioning any specific predicate offence.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must include details of the predicate offence in its summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The case arose when petitioner was summoned by the ED, but his counsel informed the Court that the summons had been issued without mentioning any specific predicate offence. His counsel speculated that the summons could be linked to a complaint case filed by the UP Pollution Control Board, in which a closure report had already been submitted.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan directed, “I am of the considered opinion that if the competent authority/ Enforcement Directorate issues a summon under Section 50 of the Act seeking presence/ appearance of the presence concerned, at least some sort of reference/ detail of the predicate offence/ case must have been indicated so that the person concerned could appear before the authority concerned with complete detail.”
The Court emphasized that when the ED issues a summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, it must include some reference or details of the predicate offence or case. This would allow the person summoned to appear before the authority with complete information.
Advocate Nadeem Murtaza represented petitioner, while Advocate Shiv P Shukla represented the Respondent.
The counsel further argued that he would have willingly participated in the investigation but was unsure why he had been summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA, as no predicate offence had been cited. In response, the ED’s counsel stated that an ongoing investigation was the likely reason for the summons but requested time to explain why the summons lacked a reference to the predicate offence.
The Court, however, declined to delve into the merits of the case. It disposed of the application, giving the ED the opportunity to issue a fresh summons to him, including details of the predicate offence. The Court also provided assurance that if he complies with the new summons, he would not be arrested.
The Court stated, “The applicant shall appear before the competent authority on the date fixed and shall co-operate in the investigation, if any, but he may not be arrested after his appearance before the competent authority/ Enforcement Directorate. It is made clear that if the applicant does not appear pursuant to fresh summon, the benefit of this order would not be given to him.”
However, the Court clarified that the decision to issue a fresh summons was entirely at the discretion of the ED, depending on whether there was any material or evidence against him in relation to a predicate offence. The Court also noted that he could raise any legal objections at the appropriate stage before the competent authority or the court.
Cause Title: Ankur Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., [2025:AHC-LKO:11128]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Prashast Puri,Nadeem Murtaza
Respondents: Advocates Rohit Tripathi, Shiv P. Shukla
