ED’s Power To Issue Summons Under Section 50 PMLA Does Not Entitle It To Arrest, Says Delhi High Court

New Delhi, October 19: The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that the power of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to issue summons to a person under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not include the power to arrest. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the ruling while hearing a plea moved by Ashish Mittal seeking quashing of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED in 2020. Mittal also sought stay of all the proceedings emanating from the said ECIR.

Justice Bhambhani stated that the power to arrest is "conspicuously absent" in Section 50 of the PMLA, which empowers ED officers to arrest any person, subject to satisfying the conditions mentioned therein. He said that the power to issue summons, require the production of documents, and record statements, which is akin to the powers of a civil court, is distinct from the power to arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA. Operation Chakra 2: CBI Conducts Searches at 76 Locations Across Country Against Cyber-Enabled Financial Frauds

Section 19 of the PMLA Act provides for inbuilt safeguards to be adhered to by the authorised officers, such as recording reasons in writing for the belief regarding the involvement of the person in the offence of money laundering and informing the person being arrested of the grounds of his arrest. The court clarified that Sections 19 and 50 of the PMLA are separate provisions, and the exercise of powers under one should not be restricted based on the apprehension that it could lead to the exercise of powers under the other, as such a position would be antithetical to the statutory scheme. Mumbai: 45-Year-Old Jalna Man Hangs Himself From Flyover in BKC Seeking Quota for Maratha Community (Watch Video)

The court dismissed the plea by Mittal, who had expressed strong apprehension about illegal detention or arrest and believed that he would be made a scapegoat. However, the court found no basis to support these concerns and ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to a copy of the ECIR. While the court clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not barred in such cases, it said that the petitioner's apprehension of coercive measures was unfounded in this instance.