JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to declare the show cause notice dated 26.10.2017 issued under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA, 2002) being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. The further prayer made is to set aside and quash the aforesaid show cause notice dated 26.10.2017 and also to set aside and quash the complaint proceeding being OC.No.836/2017 pending before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA, 2002. 3. This court by an order dated 28.11.2017 stayed the further proceeding of OC No. 836/2017. In the meantime, the respondent Enforcement Directorate had filed the connected I.A., being IA(C) 155/2021, for the vacation of the aforesaid interim order as well as the subsequent interim order dated 22.06.2018 passed by this Court in IA(C)/2276/2018. IA (C) 2276/2018 was filed praying for a stay of execution of summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate. 4. As agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal instead of taking the IAs. Since the E.D. has filed its pleadings touching the merit of the writ petition, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. The brief fact as projected by the petitioner is that while the petitioner was serving as Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, it was alleged that he had committed an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An amount of Rs. 42,79,500/- was allegedly seized from the office chamber of the petitioner and another amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- along with some documents were allegedly seized from the residence of the petitioner. Subsequently, the investigating authority submitted a charge sheet CS No. 11/2017 under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2)PC Act and presently, the matter is pending for trial before the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No.16/17. It is also contended that the amount of cash seized, as recorded hereinabove, is presently in the custody of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Authorities. 6. Subsequently, the investigating authority submitted a charge sheet CS No. 11/2017 under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2)PC Act and presently, the matter is pending for trial before the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No.16/17. It is also contended that the amount of cash seized, as recorded hereinabove, is presently in the custody of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Authorities. 6. During the pendency of such trial, the respondent Enforcement Directorate, under its order dated 29.09.2017, in the exercise of its power under Section 5(1) of PMLA, 2002, provisionally attached the seized amount, with a direction to the petitioner not to remove or part with the said amount without prior permission of the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate. Subsequently, the impugned show cause notice dated 26.10.2017 was issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 calling upon the petitioner to indicate the source of income, earnings and assets out of which or by means of which, the petitioner had acquired the said properties and it was also directed to the petitioner to appear before the authority on 15.12.2017, failing which it was also provided that complaint would be heard and decided in absence of the petitioner. 7. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while assailing such action of the respondent adjudicating authorities, argues the following:- I. If the petitioner is required to reply to the impugned show cause notice during the pendency of the trial of Special Case No.16/17 pending in the court of Special Judge, Assam, the same would amount to disclosure of defence of the petitioner, which would cause severe prejudice to the petitioner in the trial and same would result in violation of the petitioner’s right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. II. The issuance of impugned show cause notice dated 26.10.2017, is without any reasonable basis since there is no reason on the part of the authority concerned to believe that the amount seized may be concealed, transferred and or dealt with in any manner, when the seized amount is in the custody of the investigating authorities. III. According to Mr. II. The issuance of impugned show cause notice dated 26.10.2017, is without any reasonable basis since there is no reason on the part of the authority concerned to believe that the amount seized may be concealed, transferred and or dealt with in any manner, when the seized amount is in the custody of the investigating authorities. III. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel, such action is therefore, a result of absolute non-application of mind inasmuch as there cannot be any reasonable belief that the amount will be transferred/concealed or may be dealt with by the petitioner when admittedly, the amount seized is not under custody of the petitioner but under the custody of the Investigating Authority. Therefore, the initiation of the proceeding itself has no legs to stand. 8. Per contra, Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Enforcement Directorate argues: (i) The argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhattacharyya had already been answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhury & Ors -Vs- Union of India and Others reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 929 and it was held that issuance of show cause notice under Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002 would not violate the right of a person under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (ii) The provisional attachment order dated 29.09.2017 being not under challenge in the present writ petition, the legality and the validity of such attachment order may not be adjudicated in the present case. (iii) The petitioner has efficacious remedy to raise all these contentions before the adjudicating authority itself inasmuch as he is also having remedy of two stages of appeals, even if any adverse order is passed by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the present application is not only pre-matured but also liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy. 9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials available on record. Let this court first deal with the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as regards the violation of the petitioner’s right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 10. 9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials available on record. Let this court first deal with the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as regards the violation of the petitioner’s right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhury , (supra) elaborately dealt with the issues of violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India in relation to exercise of power under Section 50(2) of PMLA, 2002 and its powers regarding survey, searches, seizure, issuing of summons etc. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment in this regard can be curved out in the following manner:- I. survey, searches, seizures, issuing summons, recording of statements of concerned persons and calling upon production of documents, inquiry/investigation, arrest of persons involved in the offence of money- laundering including bail and attachment, confiscation and vesting of property being proceeds of crime shall be fully governed by the PMLA Act, 2002 in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act. II. After arrest, the manner of dealing with such an offender, involved in the offence of money laundering would, then be governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C 1973, as there are no inconsistent provisions in the 2002 Act regarding the production of the arrested person before the jurisdictional Magistrate. III. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue a summon to any person whose attendance, he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during any investigation or proceeding under this Act. IV. Article 20(3) would not come into play in respect of the process of recording statements under such summon which is only to collect information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. V. The person so summoned is bound to attend in person or through an authorized agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make a statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. VI. V. The person so summoned is bound to attend in person or through an authorized agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make a statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. VI. Summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for the collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. VII. At the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the notice. VIII. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. IX. The statements recorded by authorities under the 2002 Act, of persons involved in the commission of the offence of money-laundering or the witnesses for inquiry/investigation, cannot be hit by the vice of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 11. In view of aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the arguments as regards violation of the petitioner’s right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India should not detain this court any further and in terms of the aforesaid determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stands negated. 12. Now, let this Court deal with challenge to the show cause notice dated 26.10.2017 issued under Section 8 of the PMLA 2002 as well as the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stands negated. 12. Now, let this Court deal with challenge to the show cause notice dated 26.10.2017 issued under Section 8 of the PMLA 2002 as well as the argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel as regards not having any reason to believe in the given facts of the present case, either to exercise the power under Section 5 by the authority or under Section 8 (1) by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. For proper determination of the present lis, Section 8(1)&(2) of PMLA, 2002, is quoted herein below:- “ 1. On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub- section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an [offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime] [Substituted by Act 21 of 2009, Section 5, for "offence under section 3".], it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized [or frozen] [Inserted by Act No. 2 OF 2013] under section 17 or section 18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by the Central Government: Provided that where a notice under this sub-section specifies any property as being held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such notice shall also be served upon such other person: Provided further that where such property is held jointly by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all persons holding such property. 2. 2. The Adjudicating Authority shall, after (a)considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub- section (1); (b)hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf; and (c)taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before him, by an order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money-laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering”. 14. On a bare reading of Section 8 of the PMLA, 2002, more particularly Sub Section 1, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to issue a show cause notice on receipt of a complaint under Section 5 (5) of the PMLA, 2002 and also under Section 17(4) of the PMLA, 2002 or under Section 18(10) of the PMLA, 2002. In the case in hand, the show cause notice is relatable to Section 5(5) of PMLA, 2002. 15. Under Sub Section 2 of Section 8, a duty is cast upon the Adjudicating Authority to consider the reply by the noticee and to hear the aggrieved person as well as the investigating authority and is to pass an independent order taking into account all relevant materials placed on record before it. Thus, There is no iota of doubt that an Adjudicating Authority being empowered to adjudicate the rights of the parties, such authority, while deciding the right of the parties, must apply its independent mind to arrive at its conclusion and cannot solely replicate or rely on the reasons given by the investigating authority inasmuch as it is entrusted with adjudication. An adjudicating authority, which adjudicates right of the parties must be fair and neutral. The adjudicating authority under PMLA, cannot be mouth speech of Enforcement Directorate. 16. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhury (supra), while dealing with Section 8 of PMLA 2002, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Adjudicating Authority while exercising power under Section 8 of PMLA, 2002 may disagree with the investigating authority. 17. The adjudicating authority under PMLA, cannot be mouth speech of Enforcement Directorate. 16. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhury (supra), while dealing with Section 8 of PMLA 2002, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Adjudicating Authority while exercising power under Section 8 of PMLA, 2002 may disagree with the investigating authority. 17. In the case in hand, though it is seen that the provisionally attached property is admittedly under judicial custody at the time of provisional attachment and it is argued by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the backdrop of such fact, there cannot have any reason to believe that the property can be transferred and the proceeding can be frustrated, this Court, in absence of any challenge to the action taken under Section 5(1) of the PMLA 2002, would not like to entertain such argument more particularly, when the petitioner shall have a right to file a reply to the show cause notice under challenge, raising such objection in its show cause reply and the Adjudicating Authority is under a bounden duty to consider such show cause reply under Section 8(2) of the PMLA 2002, and is also under a bounden duty to reach a conclusion by applying its independent mind to the given facts of the case. 18. The right of the petitioner to reply to the show cause is a valuable right and under the scheme of the PMLA, 2002, the petitioner shall have a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the adjudicating authority under the scheme of Section 8 inasmuch as in the event the petitioner can convince and satisfy the adjudicating authority as regards not having any basis to proceed with the complaint filed under Section 5 of the Act, 2002, the adjudicating authority can pass an order in favour of the petitioner under Section 8(2)(C) of the Act. 19. It is also noteworthy to record that the petitioner shall have further right under Section 26 of the PMLA 2002, against any order that may be passed by the Adjudicating Authority and he will have further right under Section 42 of the PMLA 2002, to approach the High Court having jurisdiction against the order of appellate authority. 20. 19. It is also noteworthy to record that the petitioner shall have further right under Section 26 of the PMLA 2002, against any order that may be passed by the Adjudicating Authority and he will have further right under Section 42 of the PMLA 2002, to approach the High Court having jurisdiction against the order of appellate authority. 20. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case wherein this Court should interfere with the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 and the impugned proceeding being OC No.836/2017 more particularly, when the petitioner has failed to make out any case either want of jurisdiction or violations of principles of natural justice and/or his fundamental right guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. 21. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 22. While parting with the record, it is provided that the petitioner may avail his right to file a reply before the Adjudicating Authority, if so advised, within a period of 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of this order, however subject to the condition that the petitioner applies for such certified copy within a period of 10 days from today.