Case Law Details
Praveen Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court, in the case of Praveen Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., has issued a directive to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to issue fresh summons to the petitioner, Praveen Kumar, under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The court emphasized that these fresh summons should ideally include the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) number and details of the predicate offence that led to the registration of the ECIR and the subsequent search and seizure. This ruling comes after a writ petition was filed by Praveen Kumar challenging an ED search authorization and seeking the return of seized cash.
Background of the Case:
Praveen Kumar approached the Calcutta High Court challenging a search authorization dated June 11, 2025. The petitioner contended that the search and seizure operation conducted by the ED was illegal because it took place at an address not specified in the search authorization. Furthermore, Kumar claimed he was not informed of the predicate offence for which the ED’s investigation was being carried out. He sought the return of Rs. 9,00,000/- in seized cash and a directive against any coercive action by the ED.
Conversely, the ED, through its counsel, argued that the writ petition was filed only after three summonses, dated June 14, 2025, June 19, 2025, and June 24, 2025, had been issued to and ignored by the petitioner. The ED highlighted that the investigation was based on file number ‘F.No. : KLZO-I/10/2023’ and that information regarding the search and seizure had been sent to the adjudicating authority.
Judicial Precedents and Court’s Analysis:
During the arguments, the petitioner’s counsel referred to a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in Ankur Aggarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement. This precedent, according to the petitioner’s representative, suggested that when summons are issued under Section 50 of the PMLA for an individual’s appearance, some reference or detail of the predicate offence should be provided to enable the person to appear with complete information.
The Calcutta High Court, however, considered the submissions in light of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary -versus- Union of India, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1. The Supreme Court in this landmark case clarified several aspects concerning PMLA investigations, particularly regarding the ECIR.
The relevant paragraphs from Vijay Madanlal Choudhary cited by the Calcutta High Court are:
- Paragraph 376: The Supreme Court noted that while the ED Manual is an internal document, and access to it might be restricted, the ED could explore the feasibility of placing such a document on its official website to disseminate information, especially concerning the options available to individuals before authorities or the Special Court. This suggests a leaning towards transparency where feasible.
- Paragraph 382.26: The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that an ECIR cannot be equated with a First Information Report (FIR) under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is an internal ED document, and the absence of an FIR for the scheduled offence does not prevent ED authorities from initiating an inquiry/investigation for “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of proceeds of crime.
- Paragraph 382.27: Crucially, the Supreme Court held that providing a copy of the ECIR to the person concerned in every case is not mandatory. It is sufficient if the ED discloses the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest.
Based on the Supreme Court’s findings, the Calcutta High Court observed that the Allahabad High Court’s finding in Ankur Aggarwal, which suggested providing details, was not mandatory. Therefore, a person informed of an investigation cannot, as a matter of right, demand information about the predicate offence that led to the ECIR’s registration.
Despite this, the Calcutta High Court acknowledged that while details of the ECIR and the FIR related to the predicate offence are not mandatory to supply, “considering the fact that the purpose of the summons is to enable the petitioner to answer the queries, the petitioner must also be in a position to have knowledge regarding the background of the case as well as the genesis which led to the registration of the ECIR and the consequent search and seizure.”
Court’s Directive and Future Course:
Given that no current summons under Section 50 of the PMLA were outstanding, the Calcutta High Court directed the ED to issue fresh summons to Praveen Kumar, granting him 15 days to appear before the authorities. The court explicitly stated that these fresh summons, “if possible,” should accompany the ECIR number and the predicate offence which led to the ECIR’s registration.
The petitioner’s counsel affirmed an intention to cooperate with the investigation. The court deemed further directions unwarranted at this stage, as the investigation process is ongoing. The writ petition, WPA 14776 of 2025, was accordingly disposed of. This judgment underscores a balance between the ED’s investigative powers and the need for individuals to have sufficient information to participate effectively in proceedings, even if not a statutory right to full disclosure of the ECIR.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the search authorization bearing no. 93 of 2025 dated 11.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the premises/address for which the permission relating to search/seizure was granted did not relate to the address where the Enforcement Directorate exercised their powers.
Inspite of not being authorized, the Enforcement Directorate carried out the search and seizure which is per se illegal.
The petitioner further contends that the predicate offence for the purpose of which the investigation is being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate was not made known to him, neither the search and seizure was legally carried out at the behest of the Enforcement Directorate and as such petitioner prays for return of the seized cash which he claims to be Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Only).
Prayers have been advanced also for not taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate/respondent has submitted that the writ petition has been preferred after three summons were issued by the Enforcement Directorate and the same was not responded by the petitioner. The said summons for appearance were dated 14.06.2025, 19.06.2025 and 24.06.2025.
Attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that the file number which has been referred to in the summons being ‘F.No. : KLZO-I/10/2023’ is the basis on which the investigation is carried out. It has also been contended that after the search and seizure was conducted, information/intimation was also sent to the adjudicating authority.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Ankur Aggarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement), wherein according to the learned advocate it has been held that if summons are issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 50 of the PMLA,2002 for securing the presence/appearance of an individual 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 with complete details.
I have considered the submissions of the Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner as well as that of the Enforcement Directorate. Before dealing with the grievance of the parties it would be appropriate to refer in respect of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary -versus- Union of India, reported in (2023) 12 SCC
1. While dealing with the issue relating to uploading of ECIR the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it optional for the Enforcement Directorate and distinguished the same from FIR. Paragraphs 376, 382.26 and 382.27 of the said case which are relevant for deciding the present case reads as follows:-
“376. It is true that the ED Manual may be an internal document for departmental use and in the nature of set of administrative orders. It is equally true that the accused or for that matter common public may not be entitled to have access to such administrative instructions being highly confidential and dealing with complex issues concerning mode and manner of investigation, for internal guidance of officers of ED. It is also correct to say that there is no such requirement under the 2002 Act or for that matter, that there is nothing like investigation of a crime of money laundering as per the scheme of the 2002 Act. The investigation, however, is to track the property being proceeds of crime and to attach the same for being dealt with under the 2002 Act. Stricto sensu, it is in the nature of an inquiry in respect of civil action of attachment. Nevertheless, since the inquiry in due course ends in identifying the offender who is involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and then to prosecute him, it is possible for the department to outline the situations in which that course could be adopted in reference to specific provisions of the 2002 Act or the Rules framed thereunder; and in which event, what are the options available to such person before the authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Such document may come handy and disseminate information to all concerned. At least the feasibility of placing such document on the official website of ED may be explored.
382.26. In view of special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the 1973 Code. ECIR is an internal document of the ED and the fact that FIR in respect of scheduled offence has not been recorded does not come in the way of the authorities referred to in Section 48 to commence inquiry/investigation for initiating “civil action” of “provisional attachment” of property being proceeds of crime.
382.27. Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if ED at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest.
The finding of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court is in the nature of details to be provided which are not even mandatory.
As such the person who has been informed cannot as a matter of right claim that the information relating to the predicate offence which led to the registration of the ECIR can be claimed as of right.
The documents which have been placed by the Enforcement Directorate also reflects that the petitioner himself has received the search warrant on 12.06.2025 at around 7.25 a.m. However, this is being inferred on the basis of a document advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the authenticity of the same. This Court at this stage need not go into the details regarding the authenticity of the signature concerned which is available in the search warrant authorization dated 11.06.2025.
So far as the summons which have been issued, the summons were in respect of a particular file number which has been referred to. So far as the issue relating to details of predicate offence is concerned, the same as a matter of right the petitioner cannot claim, although it may be informed to the petitioner as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.
Needless to state that, as details of supply of copy of ECIR and the FIR relating to the predicate offence is not mandatory, but considering the fact that the purpose of the summons is to enable the petitioner to answer the queries, the petitioner must also be in a position to have knowledge regarding the background of the case as well as the genesis which led to the registration of the ECIR and the consequent search and seizure.
In view of the aforesaid and the fact that presently there are no summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, I direct that the Enforcement Directorate would issue fresh summons upon the petitioner granting 15 days’ time to appear before the authorities. The fresh summons, if possible, should accompany the ECIR number as well as the predicate offence which led to the registration of the ECIR.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that they intend to co-operate with the investigation.
As the process of investigation is in progress, at this stage, further directions of this Court are unwarranted.
Accordingly, WPA 14776 of 2025 is disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Author Bio
