The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has raised serious concerns regarding the Enforcement Directorate's method of serving summons in a money laundering case connected to the alleged Uttar Pradesh Police recruitment paper leak. The Court found the service of summons by an Enforcement Directorate Upper Division Clerk, whose duties are primarily desk-related, to be improper and legally inadequate.
The case involved an accused facing allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) who had been summoned by the ED. According to the ED, a clerk visited the applicant’s residence, where the applicant’s maternal aunt allegedly refused to accept the summons. The clerk then affixed the summons to a wall and took a photograph as proof of service. This photograph, along with an affidavit, was submitted to the Court by the ED as evidence of service.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused, scrutinized the ED's claim of proper service. The Court noted significant discrepancies in the submission. The photograph did not clearly show the summons affixed to the wall and failed to identify the applicant’s maternal uncle, with whom the applicant claimed to reside. Furthermore, the service report lacked signatures or thumb impressions of any witnesses to the affixation of the summons. The Court emphasized that such service methods do not meet legal standards and are insufficient to establish proper delivery.
The Court remarked that, in the present technological era, officials should utilize tools such as smartphones with timestamp and location data to accurately document the service process. The judgment made clear that merely affixing a summons to a wall without credible verification does not constitute lawful service and undermines the integrity of the legal process.
This ruling highlights the necessity for law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to proper procedures when serving legal documents. It underscores the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted transparently and in accordance with established norms. By granting anticipatory bail, the Court reinforced the principle that irregularities in procedural compliance cannot be overlooked, especially in cases involving potential deprivation of personal liberty.
The decision serves as a reminder that the credibility of legal actions, including summons and notices, depends on meticulous and lawful execution. Deviations from prescribed standards in service can lead to the invalidation of actions taken based on such service and may impact the fairness of the entire proceeding. The judgment reinforces that adherence to procedure is integral to upholding the rule of law, especially in cases initiated under stringent statutes such as the PMLA.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.