If not ECIR, ED should at least provide substance of allegations to summoned persons: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently said that in case the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not provide a copy of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the person being summoned by the agency, it must at least inform such person about the substance of allegations [Saurabh Mukund vs Directorate Of Enforcement]..Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan remarked that the inquiry or investigation is required to be fair to all stakeholders, particularly a person whose status is unknown while being summoned by the ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Taking note of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for the ED to furnish a copy of ECIR to the person summoned, Justice Khan said,“If there is nothing extraordinary or special , in normal course, a person summoned by the ED in whatever capacity is required to get, at least the substance of accusation if not the copy of ECIR, so he can prepare himself accordingly or may also collect relevant documents to answer the questions which may be put by the ED when interrogating the person summoned." .The Court also said that no person is entitled in law to evade the summons issued by the ED under Section 50 of PMLA on the ground that there is a possibility of his arrest in the future.“The law declares that every such person who is summoned is bound to state the truth. At the time of such investigative process, the person summoned is not an accused. Mere registration of ECIR does not make a person an accused. He may eventually turn out to be an accused upon being arrested or upon being prosecuted,” it observed..The Court made the observations while seeking quashing of two ECIRs registered by the ED in Lucknow in connection with a case registered by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).The petitioner Saurabh Mukund was issued summons by the ED in February this year in relation to the two ECIRs. He told the Court the issuance of summons was an attempt to harass him. .It was further contended that since an ECIR was already registered by the ED in the case, it could not have registered two more ECIRs on the same set of circumstances. The Court was also told that Mukund has not been given any details about the two ECIRs. However, the ED contended that the three ECIRs pertain to different matters. It was also argued that mere issuance of summons does not give rise to any cause of action. .Considering the submissions, the Court said it did not want to deliberate the issue in depth since it was not known on what basis or against whom the two ECIRs have been lodged. Any hypothetical discussion on this issue will not fetch any fruitful conclusion for want of necessary material or information, it added..Looking into the law, the Court noted that Section 50 of PMLA empowers ED to summon any person during the course of investigation“The persons so summoned are also bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and are required to state truth upon any subject concerning which such person is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required in a case,” it said.It added that the persons summoned are required to appear before the central agency but they may or may not be accused at the time of such investigation..In this backdrop, the Court noted that the petitioner has only been summoned to appear and submit certain documents which may be in his possession.“Thus the petitioner's prayer for quashing of ECIR'S itself is premature as at this stage even the status of the applicant before the ED is not known and the same is in the realm of future.”.The Court also noted that since ECIRs in question were not placed on record by the ED despite its counsel promising to do so, it was not in a position to examine their content.However, the Court also recorded that ED had offered to place the ECIRs in sealed cover for the perusal of the bench.“This Court is not inclined to promote the culture of sealed covers in judicial proceedings and this aspect of the matter, as to whether the ED in each and every case may refuse to provide the copy of ECIR to an accused person or even to a witness, may be deliberated in depth by this Court in an appropriate case,” it said in this regard..In conclusion, the Court said the present petition had been filed on mere apprehension as the petitioner was not aware whether he was being summoned as an accused or a witness.It also remarked the investigating agency with enough material against a person is duty bound to act as per the law and that investigation process should not be hampered at an initial stage as the courts cannot presume what possible action would be taken by the authorities.Thus, the Court refused to quash the ECIRs and summons issued to the petitioner..Advocate Neeraj Jain and Ram Prakash Pandey represented the petitioner.Advocate Rohit Trpathi represented the Enforcement Directorate. [Read Judgment]