Pramod Kumar Patra Vs Assistant Director (PMLA) (Orissa High Court)
Summary: The Orissa High Court considered a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar in CMC (PMLA) Case No.60 of 2018 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. By the impugned order, the trial court had issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner contended that pursuant to summons issued in the PMLA proceedings, he had appeared before the designated court and participated in the proceedings. However, on 02.07.2026, neither he nor his lawyer appeared and no steps were taken on his behalf. The Petitioner submitted that his non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional and was due to a communication gap and wrong noting of the date by his counsel. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in 2024 7 SCC 61, Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, and Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6256. He also referred to judgments of the Orissa High Court in Rajat Choudhury vs. Union of India (Enforcement Directorate), decided in CRLMC No.5285 of 2023 on 22.03.2024, and Durga Prasad Mishra vs. Union of India (Enforcement Directorate) and a batch of similar applications decided in CRLMC No.3753 of 2023 vide judgment dated 11.09.2023.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations involved a serious economic offence and that, considering the magnitude of the offence and the likelihood of the Petitioner absconding, the trial court was justified in issuing the NBW. Reliance was also placed on Tarsem Lal to contend that the Special Court could issue a warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the accused’s presence during trial.
The High Court observed that the undisputed position was that the Petitioner had initially appeared pursuant to summons and had participated in the trial court proceedings. On 02.07.2026, however, neither the Petitioner nor his conducting counsel appeared and no steps were taken. The Court considered whether the trial court had adopted the correct procedure by issuing the NBW at the first instance.
On a close reading of the judgments relied upon before it, the High Court held that, to ensure the Petitioner’s presence, the trial court should have initially issued a summons or bailable warrant, thereby providing at least one opportunity to the accused. Only if the Petitioner failed to respond to such summons or bailable warrant would it have been appropriate to issue a non-bailable warrant. The Court found support for this approach particularly in Inder Mohan Goswami, Vikas and the directions in Tarsem Lal. The Court also noted that the Petitioner had approached the High Court immediately after the NBW was issued, which led it to presume that he had no intention to abscond from justice or avoid the trial.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2026. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the learned trial court within 10 days from the date of the High Court’s order, along with a copy of the order, and participate in the trial. The Court further directed that, in the event of any further default, the trial court would be at liberty to take coercive measures, including issuance of an NBW, to ensure the Petitioner’s presence during trial. The CRLMC application was consequently disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, 2024 7 SCC 61 — The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s directions concerning issuance of warrants after an accused, despite valid service of summons, fails to appear, including the requirement that a bailable warrant should be issued first where appropriate before resorting to a non-bailable warrant.
- Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 1 — Relied upon for the settled approach that a non-bailable warrant should not ordinarily be issued at the first instance where summons or a bailable warrant is likely to secure the accused’s presence.
- Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 AIR SCW 6256 — Referred to for the principle concerning restraint in issuing a non-bailable warrant at the first instance.
- Rajat Choudhury vs. Union of India (Enforcement Directorate), CRLMC No.5285 of 2023, judgment dated 22.03.2024 — The High Court noted that its judgment had followed the Supreme Court judgments concerning the procedure for issuance of warrants.
- Durga Prasad Mishra vs. Union of India (Enforcement Directorate) and a batch of similar other applications, CRLMC No.3753 of 2023, judgment dated 11.09.2023 — Referred to as a subsequent decision of the High Court following the Supreme Court’s position on issuance of warrants.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1-Enforcement Directorate. Perused the application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS which corresponds to Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the prayer therein.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which was registered as CMC (PMLA) Case No.60 of 2018 has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the aforesaid order. By virtue of the impugned order dated 02.07.2026, the learned trial court has issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the present Petitioner. While assailing the impugned order dated 02.07.2026, at Annexure-3, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that such order issuing NBW of arrest against the present Petitioner is highly illegal and contrary to the well-settled position of law and that such NBW has also been issued in violation of the ratio laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many judgments.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that pursuant to summons issued to the Petitioner in the abovenoted PMLA case by the designated court, the Petitioner appeared before the court and participated in the proceeding. He further contended that on 02.07.2026 neither the Petitioner nor his lawyer could appear before the learned trial court and no steps therein were taken on behalf of the accused-Petitioner. As a result, the learned trial court, by virtue of the impugned order, has been pleased to issue NBW of arrest against the Petitioner.
5. While assailing the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 at Annexure-3, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office reported in 2024 7 SCC 61. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, referring to the paragraph 23(e) of the judgment, which contains the operative portion, submitted before this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that in a case where the accused despite valid service of summons does not appear on a subsequent date, the Special Court will be well within its powers to issue a warrant in terms of Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. It has been further clarified that the Special Court ought to have issued a bailable warrant at first. If it was not possible to effect service of the bailable warrant, only then a recourse should have been taken to issue a non-bailable warrant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 and in Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6256, and submitted that the law with regard to issuance of NBW is well-settled and, the Hon’ble Apex Court, has time and again reiterated that it is not proper for the court to issue NBW at the first instance if a summons or bailable warrant is likely to produce the desired result. Furthermore, the extreme step of issuing NBW, which tends to curb the liberty of the accused, need not be resorted to at the first instance.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment dtd.22.03.2024 of this court in Rajat Choudhury vs. Union of India (Enforcement Directorate) decided in CRLMC No.5285 of 2023 and Durga Prasad Mishra vs. Union of India (Enforcement Directorate) and a batch of similar other applications decided in CRLMC No.3753 of 2023 vide judgment dated 11.09.2023. Both the judgments of this court have followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraph. While assailing the order dated 02.07.2026, whereby the learned trial court has issued NBW of arrest at the first instance, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is really willing to appear before the learned trial court and cooperate with the trial. He further submitted that the nonappearance of the Petitioner and his counsel on 02.07.2026 is neither deliberate nor intentional. Rather, the same is due to a communication gap and wrong noting of the date by the counsel for the Petitioner. He further contended that after the order dated 02.07.2026, the Petitioner has immediately approached this Court by filing the present application expressing his desire to cooperate with the learned trial court. Therefore, there is no question of either the Petitioner intentionally avoiding appearance before the court or garnering any intention to abscond from justice. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 be quashed and the Petitioner be given another opportunity to participate in the trial.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, on the other hand, contended that learned trial court has not committed any illegality in issuing NBW of arrest against the present Petitioner, vide order dated 02.07.2026, at Annexure-3. While supporting the order passed by the learned trial court, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate submitted before this Court that the allegations made against the present Petitioner are of very serious nature, involving an economic offence. As such, he contended that this Court should not take a lenient view in such cases including economic offences. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the magnitude of the offence and the likelihood of the Petitioner absconding from justice, the learned trial court has issued an NBW of arrest against the present Petitioner. As such, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate argued before this Court that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality and that the order dated 02.07.2026 does not call for any interference.
8. In course of his argument, learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal’s case (supra). Referring to paragraph 23, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the fact of subsequent disappearance of the accused in the trial court and has further observed that it is open to the learned Special Court to take resort to Section 70 of the Cr.P.C and issue a warrant against the accused to ensure his presence before the court during trial. He further contended that since it is difficult to serve any summons or bailable warrant on the Petitioner, the learned trial court adopted the right path while issuing the NBW at the first instance itself. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate contended that the learned Special Court has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 02.07.2026, at Annexure-3.
9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission, further on a close scrutiny of the legal provisions governing the field and the issue involved in the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court observes the undisputed fact that the Petitioner initially pursuant to a summons appeared before the court and he was participating in the trial court. However, on 02.07.2026, neither the Petitioner nor his conducting counsel appeared before the court and no steps were taken in the trial court. As a result, the learned trial court issued NBW against the present Petitioner by virtue of his order dated 02.07.2026, at Annexure-3. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this court by filing the present CRLMC application. The question, therefore, which falls for determination in the present case is whether the learned trial court has adopted the right procedure in issuing the NBW at the first instance.
10. On a perusal of the factual background of the present case as well as the order dated 02.07.2026, it is crystal clear that neither the Petitioner nor his lawyer appeared before the learned trial court on 02.07.2026. No steps in that regard were also taken by the Petitioner. Considering the magnitude of the allegations as well as the fact that the case involves an economic offence, the learned trial court has immediately issued NBW against the present Petitioner. This Court, on a close reading of the judgments referred to hereinabove, observes that the learned trial court, to ensure the presence of the Petitioner before itself, should have initially issued a summons or bailable warrant, providing at least one opportunity to the accused. Had the Petitioner failed to respond to such summons or B.W., it would have been appropriate on the part of the learned trial court to issue NBW.
11. The aforesaid view of this Court gets support from the judgments referred to hereinabove, particularly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) and Vikas (supra), as well as the direction in Tarsem Lal’s case (supra). The aforesaid ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been followed by this Court in the subsequent judgments which have also been referred to hereinabove. Moreover, this Court observes that although NBW was issued on 02.07.2026, the Petitioner approached this Court immediately by filing the present application thereby challenging order dated 02.07.2026. From the aforesaid conduct of the Petitioner, this Court can draw a presumption that the Petitioner had no intention to abscond from justice or to avoid the trial. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 at Annexure-3.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 is hereby set aside. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court within 10 days from today along with a copy of today’s order and to participate in the trial. It is further directed that in the event the Petitioner makes any further default in future, it will be open to the learned trial court to take any coercive measures against the Petitioner, including issuance of NBW, to ensure the presence of the Petitioner during trial.
13. With the above observation and direction, this CRLMC application is disposed of.
