JUDGMENT A complaint was lodged in the court of Vigilance Judge, Ranchi against the then Chief Minister, some of the Ministers as also against other persons alleging therein about the commission of the offences under Sections 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said complaint was forwarded to Vigilance Department, upon which a Vigilance case was registered against the aforesaid persons. 2. Subsequently, on the basis of the allegation made in the Vigilance case, Enforcement Directorate lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against them alleging therein that there has been reason to believe from the fact disclosed in the Vigilance case that the accused persons by hatching criminal conspiracy have acquired huge assets both in India and outside India by indulging themselves in criminal act under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such, prima facie, materials are there to form an opinion that the offence of Money Laundering have been committed by Madhu Koda, the then Chief Minister and six other accused persons including Binod Kumar Sinha which is punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 3. In course of investigation, it transpired that the petitioner, who owns a company named as M/s. Quantum Power tech has a close association with Binod Kumar Sinha, who is said to have invested proceeds of crime in different companies including M/s. Quantum Power tech. In that event, during investigation proceeding summon was issued to the petitioner for the purpose of his interrogation to which he responded immediately and gave statements on 17th, 18th and 21st December, 2009. The petitioner was again asked to appear on 30.6.2010 but the petitioner could not appear on that date for some valid reason and since the petitioner could not appear on that date, the Enforcement Directorate made the petitioner as an accused and got warrant of arrest issued under order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi. That order was challenged in Cr. M.P. No. 1209 of 2010 which was heard along with Cr. M. P. No. 1219 of 2010. 4. That order was challenged in Cr. M.P. No. 1209 of 2010 which was heard along with Cr. M. P. No. 1219 of 2010. 4. While assailing the said order under which warrant of arrest had been issued, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had initially been cited as a witness in the investigation proceeding but since the petitioner could not appear on the date on which he had been called upon, the petitioner was put to the category of the accused and under this circumstance, he could not explain before the Enforcement Directorate about his innocence. 5. The stand which was taken by the Enforcement Directorate is that the petitioner consistently evaded his appearance and that the Investigating Officer has found prima facie materials against the petitioner for putting him on trial for the aforesaid offence. 6. In view of the respective stand taken by the parties, those applications were disposed of with the following observation/direction. “i. The petitioners shall appear before the learned court below within eight weeks from the date of this order in the event they are cited as accused and charge sheet is filed against them. ii. During this period, petitioners shall report at the office of the Directorate of Enforcement on the dates on which they are called upon to appear and extend full cooperation in the investigation made by the Directorate of Enforcement. iii. In order to enable the petitioners to appear before the investigating agency, the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners, shall not be executed till the expiry of the above stipulated period of eight weeks. iv. Upon the petitioners’ appearing before the Directorate of Enforcement/ investigating agency, they shall have the right to seek presence of lawyer or legal adviser or any near relative at the time of their interrogation by the investigating officer. v. The petitioners shall not be subjected to any third degree treatment or any physical or mental harm by the investigating officer in course of interrogation. vi. The petitioners shall be at liberty to seek anticipatory bail before the appropriate forum.” 7. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner did appear before the Enforcement Directorate on 25.10.2010 and even his statement was recorded. On 26.10.2010 the petitioner was noticed to produce certain documents which were produced on 1.11.2010, on which date statement of the petitioner was again recorded. The petitioners shall be at liberty to seek anticipatory bail before the appropriate forum.” 7. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner did appear before the Enforcement Directorate on 25.10.2010 and even his statement was recorded. On 26.10.2010 the petitioner was noticed to produce certain documents which were produced on 1.11.2010, on which date statement of the petitioner was again recorded. Thereafter, according to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was never called upon to appear or to furnish any document. In spite of that, the investigating officer filed an application on 25.1.2012 before the Special court praying therein to issue proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and four other persons taking the ground that they did not appear before the court despite the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. On such application, the court vide its order dated 25.1.2012 issued process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been challenged in this application. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in obedience of the order passed by this Court appeared before the Directorate of Enforcement whenever he was called upon and made statements and even furnished certain documents. However, balance sheet of the company of M/s. Quantum Power tech which was asked to be produced could not be produced as it was not available with the petitioner on account of the fact that the same had been seized by the Income Tax Authorities, still the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued by the Special court without there being any reason to believe that the petitioner has absconded or has concealed himself so that such warrant cannot be executed. 9. In this regard, it was submitted that, in fact, the investigating officer never made any attempt to find out as to whether the petitioner is available on the address other than the address given of Delhi, though at earlier point of time, the summon had been issued on the address of Ranchi. 10. Under the circumstances, the order under which process has been issued is fit to be quashed. 11. As against this, Mr. 10. Under the circumstances, the order under which process has been issued is fit to be quashed. 11. As against this, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that it is true that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner did appear before the Directorate on 25.10.2010 and undertook to submit balance sheet and other documents of the four companies including two companies, namely, M/s. Quantum Power tech and M/s. Newton Consultant and that on 25.10.2010 he had given his residential address of Delhi. On 1.11.2010, the petitioner submitted balance sheets of other companies but did not produce balance sheet of the aforesaid two companies which he has undertaken to produce earlier. At the same time, he failed to furnish the source of fund of Rs.80 lakhs which he had invested in company. 12. It was further pointed out that after 22.11.2010 when the warrant of arrest earlier issued, operation of which had been stayed by this Court became operative, step was taken to locate the petitioner on the address given by him but he was never found present on that address. 13. Under the circumstances, proclamation was issued on the request made by the investigating officer and hence, no illegality has been committed by the court. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that earlier when the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, it was challenged before this Court on the ground that in the investigation proceeding, the petitioner had been interrogated as witness but suddenly warrant of arrest was issued and as such, he could not place his explanation against the incriminating materials appearing against him before the Directorate authority. However, stand of the other side was that upon collecting prima facie materials of Investigating Officer got warrant of arrest issued, when the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigating proceeding. In such situation, operation of warrant of arrest was stayed for eight weeks during which petitioner was directed to appear before the Enforcement Directorate as and when he is called upon for the purpose of investigation. 15. Further direction was that the petitioner will appear before the court within eight weeks, if he is cited as an accused in the charge sheet filed in the case. 15. Further direction was that the petitioner will appear before the court within eight weeks, if he is cited as an accused in the charge sheet filed in the case. At the same time, liberty was given to the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail before the appropriate forum. Pursuant to that direction, petitioner did appear before the Enforcement Directorate and gave undertaking to produce certain documents some of which according to the petitioner were produced but some document could not be produced as it was not available but according to the prosecution, it were not produced in spite of the undertaking being given by the petitioner. Meanwhile, after expiry of eight weeks, warrant of arrest issued earlier against the petitioner became operative after 22.11.2010 and as such, the investigating officer took step to locate the petitioner against whom according to prosecution materials are there showing commission of offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the address given by the petitioner before the Enforcement Directorate but he was never found present on the address and thereby there was reason to believe that the petitioner was absconded. 16. Under the circumstances, the special court never seems to have committed any illegality in passing the order under which process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued against the petitioner. 17. Thus, I do not find any illegality with the order. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.