ORDER 1. The Petitioners seek quashing of summons dated 31.01.2014 issued by the Assistant Director, Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Patna in File Nos. PTZO/05/2013/373, PTZO/05/2013/266, PTZO/05/2013/318, PTZO/05/2013/369 and PTZO/05/2013/265 respectively under Section 50(2) and (3) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. It has firstly been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that issuance of summons under Section 50(2) and (3) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without institution of a substantive case is illegal. The further submission is that even though the Counter-Affidavit states that a case has been instituted but when no details have been given the averment is not reliable. In the alternative he argues that in case a substantive case has been instituted it would be against the spirit of Article 20(3) Constitution of India to summon them. He relies on the decision of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr reported in AIR 1978 SC 1025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cautioned against questioning an accused which would have the tendency to incriminate him. 3. The further objection is that the documents which have been mentioned in the summons are already with the concerned Authority and, therefore, there was no reason for them to be summoned. The apprehension of the Petitioners is that on their appearance they would be compelled to give a confession, thereafter prosecuted, which is the general practice in Bihar. 4. Further submission is that the stage of issuance of summons under Section 50(4) is a deemed Judicial Proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193/228 IPC i.e. penalty for giving false evidence and intentional insult or interruption of public servant sitting in judicial proceeding respectively, hence, when no proceeding has been initiated, nor charges framed, the Authority could not assume powers of a Court for the purpose of Section 50(2)(3) of the Act. 5. The additional submission on behalf of Petitioners of Cr. Misc. Nos. 13662 of 2014 and 12653 of 2014 is that they are ladies and, therefore, they should be given liberty of appearing through their representatives instead of being called in person. As for Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 11957 of 2014 he has already been acquitted in some of the cases mentioned as against him. 6. Misc. Nos. 13662 of 2014 and 12653 of 2014 is that they are ladies and, therefore, they should be given liberty of appearing through their representatives instead of being called in person. As for Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 11957 of 2014 he has already been acquitted in some of the cases mentioned as against him. 6. On the other hand, Counsel for the Director of Enforcement submits that the Petitioners are purposely trying to delay the process and have not yet appeared before the Director for which reason the matter has been referred to the Conducting Authority where the proceeding is now pending. 7. In order to deal with the rival submissions raised on behalf of the Counsels one will have to understand the purpose and scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It appears the statute was brought in existence after a special session of the U.N. held in June, 1998 called upon its member states to adopt legislations to combat the menace of money- laundering for funding crimes of various magnitudes and it entails both civil as well as a criminal liability. Brief overview reveals that whereas Chapter III deals with the procedure by which the property can be provisionally/finally attached, the manner of Adjudication and Confiscation, Chapter V deals with the procedure of survey, search, seizure of documents and arrest of persons by officers described therein and Chapter VIII deals with the classes, powers and jurisdiction of Authorities for purposes of this Act. 8. As for the criminal liability Section 3 in Chapter II describes the offence as :- “3. Offence of money-laundering—Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.” And Section 4 provides penalty for such an act, while Chapter VII deals with constitution of Special Courts for trial of such offences by Judicial Officers. Notably under Section 24 when a person is accused of having committed offence under Section 3 the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. 9. Notably under Section 24 when a person is accused of having committed offence under Section 3 the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. 9. However, in the facts of the case it would be proper to concentrate and examine in some detail the civil liability since notices have been issued under Section 50 of Chapter VIII. We find that two sections in the Act empower authorities to take steps to discover facts. Whereas Section 11 spells out the powers of the Adjudicating Authority in discovery of facts, Section 50 does so in regard to a Director. Both quoted below:- “11. Power regarding summons, production of documents and evidence, etc.--- (1) The Adjudicating Authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following, matters, namely:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company or a financial institution or a company, and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavit; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as the Adjudicating Authority may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (3) Every proceeding under this section shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). “Section 50. (3) Every proceeding under this section shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). “Section 50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.---(1) The Director, shall, for the purposes of section 12, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company or a financial institution or a company, and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorized agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not--- (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the Director.” On comparison of the two Sections, the purpose of which is the same, one finds that Section 11 importantly apart from sub-section (5) omits sub-section (2) which mentions the word proceedings. The intent of the Legislature was obviously to expand the scope of issuance of summons without prescribing limits at the level of the Director. 10. The question as to the words „deemed to be a judicial proceeding mentioned in sub-section (4) would be a stage only after institution of a case and after framing of charge has to be rejected on account of the definition of “judicial proceedings” in Section 2 (i) Code of Criminal Procedure which describes it as:- (i) “judicial proceeding”, includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath; 11. Moreover, since Section 50(1) prescribes taking of affidavits on oath, evidently the proceeding would be judicial proceeding as per the definition reproduced above. Also, when Sub-Section 3 requires the summoned person to state the truth, evidently, even if it had not been emphasized, as done in Section 50(4) any false evidence or intentional insult or interruption in such a proceeding could in any event, be dealt with, as provided under Section 193 and 228. 12. As for the decision of Nandini Satpathy (1978) 2 SCC 425(supra) relied upon by the Petitioners, one finds that there the Apex Court was considering the right to silence of an Accused and the balance to be maintained between Article 20(3) and 161(2) Cr.P.C. In the present case since the Petitioners have been summoned to discharge their civil liability and not pursuant to a substantive criminal case evidently the decision is not relevant. 13. Also one must also keep in mind that where financial transactions are concerned it is the holder of such property/monies who alone is in the best position to explain the ownership/possession. There being no express adverse presumption in the statute where civil liability is concerned I would be of the opinion that it is much to the advantage of the summoned person to explain its holding. At this stage it would be improper to assume that the answers would criminate the Petitioners therefore, their objection with regard to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is also without substance. Presently all that the Petitioners are required to do is to furnish truthful information with regard to the questionnaire sent to them and nothing more. 14. Here, I would like to cite some observations of the Apex Court in the case of Hira. H. Advani etc. Presently all that the Petitioners are required to do is to furnish truthful information with regard to the questionnaire sent to them and nothing more. 14. Here, I would like to cite some observations of the Apex Court in the case of Hira. H. Advani etc. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1971 SC 44 in regard to the purpose of Section 171(A) The Customs Act (8 of 1878) (since repealed) which was almost similar to Section 50 in the context of Section 132 Evidence Act. Relevant portion of Section 171(A) and the decision are reproduced below. I am unable to elaborate any better than the Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court. “171A. Power of officers of Customs to summon person to give evidence and produce documents- (i) Any officer of Customs duly employed in the prevention of smuggling shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making in connection with smuggling of any goods. (2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned. (3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorized agent, as such officer may direct; any or all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and to produce such documents and other things as may be required: Provided that the exemption under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be applicable to any requisition for attendance under this section. (4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. 36. At the stage envisaged by Section 171-A a Customs Officer is given the power to interrogate any person in connection with the smuggling of any goods which it is his duty to prevent. Such a person may have nothing to do with the smuggling of any goods although he may know where such goods are or who has or had them. Such a person may have nothing to do with the smuggling of any goods although he may know where such goods are or who has or had them. Sub-section (3) of Section 171-A does not compel any person to make a statement but if he makes a statement he has to state the truth so as to avoid punishment under Section 193 I.P.C. At that stage nothing may be known as to whether an offence has been committed or who has committed it and the person interrogated at that stage certainly is not a person accused of or charged with an offence. He is merely called upon to give evidence to facilitate in inquiry. He is not a witness giving evidence in a Court and his testimony will make him liable under Section 193, I.P.C. only because of the express provision of law in subsection (4) of Section171-A.” 15. Lastly, the objection that the documents are already lying with the Summoning Authorities and it was unnecessary for them to have summoned the Petitioners for such purpose, is for them to explain, on their appearance. 16. Hence, finding no merit in the application, the same is dismissed. 17. The Petitioners are directed to immediately appear before the concerned authorities.