The Calcutta High Court has found no illegality in an Enforcement Directorate notice requiring an individual to appear and produce financial records under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The bench of Justice Krishna Rao observed that Section 50 empowers the authorities to call for documents and enforce the attendance of any person and disposed of the petition challenging the notice after recording the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that he was appearing before the authorities.
Buy Now: Legal & Taxation Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an ED notice dated September 18, 2026, which initially directed him to appear before the authorities on September 28, 2026.
The notice required him to furnish copies of his PAN and Aadhaar for identification, details of all bank accounts maintained from 2010 onwards, and particulars of investments made during the same period. The investment records sought included national savings certificates, fixed deposits, recurring deposits, shares and mutual funds.
The ED also sought details of all properties purchased or sold by the petitioner from 2010 onwards. Besides producing these documents, he was required to give oral evidence and have his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA.
The petitioner argued that although the ED had issued the notice under Section 50, it had not complied with Section 3 of the PMLA. Relying on that provision, counsel contended that the notice did not indicate the purpose for which the petitioner had been summoned.
The petitioner also objected to the breadth of the documents demanded. His counsel submitted that it was not possible to collect and produce bank records dating back to 2010 within the short time allowed.
Another objection concerned the timing of the summons. According to the petitioner, the notice related to a case initiated by the ED in 2020, but the authorities had summoned him after a lapse of six years. On these grounds, he sought to have the notice set aside.
The ED submitted that Section 50 authorises the authorities to summon any person to produce documents and give evidence. It argued that the notice had been issued in exercise of that power and that the required documents were identified in Annexure-A accompanying the notice.
The agency also drew the Court’s attention to a representation submitted by the petitioner seeking 15 days’ time to appear. It pointed out that while challenging the notice before the High Court, the petitioner had separately requested additional time from the investigating authorities.
The ED informed the Court that, after considering his request, it had rescheduled his appearance from September 28, 2026, to October 6, 2026.
After hearing both sides and examining the materials on record, the High Court noted that the ED had invoked Section 50 to require production of the documents specified in the notice.
The Court held that the provision empowers the authorities to call for documents and enforce attendance. On that basis, it found no illegality in the issuance of the notice.
The order records: “Section 50 of the PMLA Act provides power to call for any document and enforcing the attendance of any person.”
The petitioner’s counsel subsequently submitted that the petitioner was appearing before the authorities. Recording that submission, the Court held that no further order was required and disposed of the writ petition.
The decision addresses the ED’s authority to issue the impugned notice for attendance and production of documents. The Court did not determine whether the petitioner had committed any offence under the PMLA.
Although the order records the petitioner’s objections concerning Section 3, the age of the investigation and the difficulty of obtaining records from 2010, it does not contain separate, detailed findings on each objection. Its conclusion rests on the powers available under Section 50 and the submission that the petitioner was appearing before the authorities.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
