Pmla Akash case senior advts arguments MS Ramesh judge and lakshminarayanan judge

W.P.(Crl.) No.71 of 2025
w.P.(Crl.) No.71 of 2025
When the matter was called, Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, began by stressing the illegality of the entire search and seizure operation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He submitted that despite the Hon’ble Court having previously granted time to the ED to file a counter affidavit, no such counter had been filed till date.
Appearing for the ED, Mr. N. Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor, informed the Court that he had received instructions to seek two more weeks’ time to file the counter. This request was strongly opposed by Dr. Sondhi, who argued that the delay was completely unfair and an abuse of the process
At this point, the bench reminded Mr. Ramesh that a final opportunity had already been granted earlier, and that the respondent had failed to comply with that direction.
Mr. Vijay Narayanan pointed out that Mr. Vikas Kumar, Assistant Director of ED, was present in Court during the previous hearing when the stay was passed, and he ought to have informed the Adjudicating Authority. However, due to his failure to do so, the Adjudicating Authority had proceeded to issue the show cause notice, in clear violation of the stay.
Counsel further referred to the typed set of records, pointing out that the only material relied on by the ED to connect the petitioner to the alleged offence was the fact that the contact number of a certain individual was found saved in the petitioner’s phone. It was submitted that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the individuals involved in the alleged offence, and such material was grossly insufficient to justify the search.
During the course of arguments, the Hon’ble Bench, referring to the Court’s earlier direction, questioned the ED’s counsel as to what value the phrase “last opportunity” holds if, despite it being clearly recorded in the order, no counter affidavit had been filed.
Mr. Ramesh, appearing for the ED, responded that new officers had recently taken charge and required additional time to review the case and prepare a reply.
In response, Mr. Vijay Narayanan submitted that the scope of the counter affidavit was limited, particularly since the sealed cover containing the “Reasons to Believe” was already placed before the Court. He argued that the issue under challenge was the absence of any statutory power to seal premises under Section 17 of the PMLA, and that the section did not contemplate or authorise sealing, making the action of the ED wholly unauthorised.
The ED counsel once again requested that one more final opportunity be granted.
The Hon’ble Bench, however, firmly stated that if the counter was not filed within the time now fixed, it would be deemed to have been admitted. The Court also raised the issue regarding withdrawal of the impugned notice, and questioned whether it had been formally withdrawn as per the Court’s previous directions.
Mr. Ramesh responded that the ED had communicated the withdrawal via email.
Mr. Vijay Narayanan objected, stating that no proper withdrawal had been effected, and that the email did not clearly state that the notice was withdrawn.
Upon perusing the email communication, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan remarked that the term “withdrawn” was not even used in the mail. He further observed that a simple sentence such as “the notice is withdrawn” would have been sufficient. The Court found the content of the communication vague, evasive and non-compliant with the specific order of the bench.
In light of the continued non-compliance, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 in each of the three petitions, totalling Rs. 30,000, on the Enforcement Directorate. The matter was adjourned to 20.08.2025, with a direction that if the counter is not filed by then, it shall be deemed to have been admitted.