Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Ms. Sulakshan S. Vedartham v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Judgment

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) seeks the following prayers: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 “A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 09.06.2023 in Misc DJ ASJ 98/2023 thereby quashing non- bailable warrants as issued against the Petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2023 Misc DJ ASJ 35/2023 as being bad in law and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, And/or B) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The petitioner, who is a citizen of England, United Kingdom, has preferred the present petition challenging the impugned order dated

09.06.2023 whereby, the learned Special Judge, (PC Act), (CBI)-16, Rouse Avenue District Courts, declined to cancel the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2023. BACKGROUND

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi registered an FIR No. RC2172020A0002 on 23.06.2020 under Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) against Shri Venugopal Dhoot and one unknown officer of the Consortium of Banks led by the State Bank of India.

4. As the offences alleged in the aforesaid FIR were scheduled offences, the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘ED’) registered an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/HQ/08/2020 on 30.06.2020. The case of the respondent/ED is as under: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023

4.1. During investigation, it was revealed that M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘VIL’) had raised foreign currency loan for the appraisal and development of Oil and Gas assets (Mozambique, Brazil Indonesia, Australia, and East Timor), through its overseas company Jupitor Corporation from July 2009 against Standby Letter of Credit (‘SBLC facilities’) issued by the Indian lender banks.

4.2. During investigation, it was subsequently revealed that in 2008, M/s Videocon Hydro Carbon Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘VHHL’), a wholly owned step-down subsidiary of M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. (‘VIL’) required 10% participating interest in oil and gas assets in Rovuma area, 1 Block, Mozambique, from M/s Anadarko, which is a US petroleum company. Shri Venugopal Dhoot, was the Chairman and Managing Director of VIL and VHHL. Further, VHHL was registered at Cayman Islands and was dealing with the oil and gas business and having oil and gas assets in Mozambique, Indonesia, and Brazil.

4.3. Thereafter, it is alleged that VHHL also raised USD 400 million facilities from the Standard Charted Bank, London for appraisal and development of oil and assets of the Videocon Group. In 2012, it is alleged that the VIL refinanced the abovesaid credit facilities under the consortium structure having various lender banks led by the State Bank of India. State Bank of India led consortium bank had sanctioned the SBLC facilities amounting to USD 2774 million approximately to VHHL between 2012-13. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023

4.4. The investigation revealed that V.N. Dhoot and P.N. Dhoot, authorized signatories of overseas oil and gas asset holding companies Videocon Group Companies, with a dishonest intention to cheat the lender banks had diverted the foreign currency loans availed by Jupitor and VHHL against the SBLC facilities issued by lender banks and SCB loan availed by VHHL against the oil and gas assets. Out of SBLC facilities, SCB facility and Jupitor facility of USD 1967,577,140 in total, was diverted and used for unintended purposes, USD 1813 million approx. were diverted to India during the period from July 2009 till 2015-16. Out of the funds diverted in India, some of the funds were re-routed to overseas entities by way of payment of refund of export advances and loan to overseas Videocon Group Companies.

4.5 The petitioner herein has been running his business in India as well as in the overseas jurisdictions. In India, he controls the business affairs of M/s Engineer.ai India Private Limited and its other group companies. Earlier, during the period from 2008-09, he was doing his business through M/s Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Nivio India’). The petitioner was running its business at overseas thorough his flagship company, ‘nHoldings SA’, USA, till 2014.

4.6 The investigation has revealed that Videocon Group Companies in India and overseas had transactions with the companies of the petitioner. Videocon group had made payments to M/s Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Nivio India) amounting to Rs.18,44,77,000/- during the period from

15.12.2008 to 02.01.2011. However, a loan agreement was signed between Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd and Videocon Industries Limited (VIL), Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 only on 24.05.2011, whereby, VIL had lent an amount of Rs.17,31,98,430/- (equivalent to USD 3,789,900). The agreement was signed by the petitioner

and Shri P.N. Dhoot on behalf of Nivio India and VIL respectively. This agreement, as per respondent/ED, appears to be after thought which needs further investigation.

4.7 On 23.10.2011, a loan agreement of USD 2.5 million was signed between the petitioner and M/s Jupitor Corporation INC wherein, the petitioner was the lender and M/s Jupitor Corporation INC was the borrower which meant that petitioner is receiving money from Videocon Group in India and paying funds to Videocon Group Overseas.

4.8. On 25.05.2011, a share purchase agreement was executed between nHoldings SA and M/s Jupitor Corporation INC, wherein, Jupitor agreed to invest CHF 3,789,900 at a price of CHF 563.55 per share. The agreement was signed by the petitioner on behalf of nHoldings SA. However, in the financial statement of nHoldings SA of 2010, there was mention of share price as CHF 597.28 per share. As per the respondent, the discrepancy in the share prices in the agreement vis-a-vis the financial statement of the company needs verification.

4.9. In November 2011, VIL had transferred funds equivalent to USD 1,952,964 to nHoldings SA through a complex web of transactions using various layers including Videocon Global Limited, Jupitor Corporation, M/s Goldcoast Invex INC. and M/s Global EPC Ventures Limited (all Videocon Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 group overseas companies). Global EPC Ventures Limited had transferred the funds amounting to USD 1,952,964 to M/s nHoldings SA on 23.11.2011.

4.10. During the period from July 2009 to 2015-16, Videocon Group Companies had diverted various credit facilities availed by the Overseas Videocon Group companies for the development of Oil and Gas assets of the Videocon Group. The diverted funds were utilized for the unintended purpose of leading the accounts to become Non-Performing Assets (‘NPA’) and causing loss to Indian Banks to the tune of Rs. 61,773 Crores approximately.

4.11. A part of the abovesaid diverted funds were retained by Videocon Group in various forms, i.e., the creation of personal assets, investments/retention of funds in various Videocon Group companies and such diverted funds were used for the creation of the personal assets and as per respondent, this investment/retention of funds constitutes the proceeds of crime.

4.12 The investigation has further revealed that the company nHoldings SA had stopped the business in 2014, and was dissolved in the 2014 itself. During investigation, V.N. Dhoot had stated that they had not received any funds from nHoldings SA against their investments in nHoldings SA.

4.13. During the relevant time of investment, P.N. Dhoot and V.N. Dhoot were the Directors and Authorized Signatories of the accounts through which funds were routed and sent to Global EPC Ventures Limited for further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 investment in nHoldings SA. It has not been confirmed from the investigation so far about the further travel of the proceeds of crime from nHoldings SA as the account statement of nHoldings SA was not provided.

4.14. In pursuance of the aforesaid investigation, the petitioner was summoned for his personal appearance and seeking information relating to the investments made by the Videocon Group companies, and in order to ascertain his role in his company and holding assets in siphoning off the investment funds in Videocon Group Companies. The sequence of summons issued to the petitioner as per the case of the respondent, as stated in their reply is as under: - Date Description

05.01.2022 Summons were issued to the Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal for his appearance on 27.01.2022

19.01.2022 Summons received back as undelivered at the given address.

19.01.2022 The summons were again sent to the another address of his company at GF 77B, Sector 18, IFCO Road Gurugram, Haryana.

26.01.2022 Postal authorities had returned the summons with the remark “refuse to accept”. However, the summons was served at the office address by hand.

27.01.2022 Email from Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal received on the next day requesting therein for adjournment of 2 weeks on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 health grounds.

01.02.2022 Adjournment request on health grounds was considered and next date of appearance was fixed on 10.02.2022.

10.02.2022 Email received from Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal stating therein that he is a citizen of United Kingdom and requested to send a formal request through due process.

10.02.2022 An email was sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal for obtaining his UK residential address but he did not respond to the email.

16.02.2022 A reminder email was sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal to provide his overseas address. However, no reply in this respect was received.

17.02.2022 Summons to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal issued and were sent through MLAT to UK.

19.10.2022 A reminder email was sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal referring both the summons dated 05.01.2022 and

17.02.2022, for, his appearance on 01.11.2022 and submission of documents.

01.11.2022 Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal not appeared. However, a partial reply received through email along with the details of his UK address.

04.11.2022 A reminder email sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal

07.12.2022 A reminder email sent to Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal

08.12.2022

22.12.2022 A partial reply through emails were received from Sh. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 Sachin Dev Duggal; however, he did not appear.

29.12.2022

4.15. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has though furnished information in the form of documents through emails dated 01.11.2022,

08.12.2022, 22.12.2022 and 29.12.2022; however, he has failed to provide crucial documents including the copy of account statement of his company nHoldings SA maintained with UBS Bank and did not appear before the respondent explaining the transactions between the Videocon Group and his company, nHoldings SA.

4.16. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application for issuance of open ended Non-Bailable Warrants before the learned Special Court, Greater Bombay, PMLA. The said application, as per the case of the respondent, was rejected vide order dated 03.02.2023 by the learned PMLA Special Court, Greater Bombay, as the said Court was not the appropriate forum having jurisdiction in case. Thereafter, an application dated 07.02.2023, MISC ASJ/35/2023, was filed before the learned Special Court, PMLA, New Delhi, for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants which was allowed vide order dated

10.02.2023. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application, MISC/DJ/ASJ/98/2023, for cancellation of the aforesaid Non-Bailable Warrants which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, (PC Act), (CBI)-16, Rouse Avenue District Courts. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Court PMLA, Greater Bombay, and particularly, towards the following paragraphs: - “12. I carefully examined all these facts. Also, I carefully gone through the copies of summons, E-mail correspondence between ED and Sachin Dev Duggal. Considering the allegations I asked the Assistant Director, what. is .the exact status of Sachin Dev• Duggal? Whether he is an accused or a witness? He submitted that, Sachin Dev Duggal is a witness and not cooperating the summons. In such situation if any person is not attending in obedience to an order from the public Servant i.e., Investigating. Officer of ED, the proceedings for the same are prescribed under Sec. 174 of Indian Penal Code and ED had initiated many such proceedings in various matters by• lodging complaints alleging offence under Sec.174 IPC, in the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. Therefore, such remedy is open for the ED, if the status of Sachin Dev Duggal is a witness. From the submissions made by the Assistant Director, ED, New Delhi. It is clear that Sachin Dev Duggal is not an accused at the moment, but not responding the summons. Therefore, straight way NBW cannot be issued as contended by the ED. **** **** ****

14. I am of the opinion that, if any person like Sachin Dev Duggal, who is allegedly not complying direction in the summons, remedy under Sec.174 IPC is there for the same. Admittedly, at the moment Sachin Dev Duggal is not an accused but a witness, as submitted by the Assistant Director, ED, New Delhi. Parameters for issuing NBW against any accused and parameters for issuing NBW against any witness during the course of investigation, are different. Prima-facie in view of the Notification vide S.O. 372(E) dt. 5th February, 2016 Designated Special Court under the PML Act for ECIR recorded is at New Delhi based on the CBI FIR which too recorded in New Delhi. Therefore, prima-facie the Court at Delhi appears to be the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 Court of First Instance for proposed trial of this PMLA case as per the said Notification. Even if some CBI cases against various other accused are pending in CBI Special Courts in Mumbai, when PMLA case relating to this ECIR is proposed for trial, the ED will have to initiate proceedings as per Sec. 44(1)(c) of the PML Act. Rather taking resort for such administrative purposes, invoking jurisdiction of this Court for the prayers made in this application is not justified. Hence, following order is passed.”

6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that clear statement was made before the learned Special Court, Greater Bombay, that the present petitioner was being summoned as a ‘witness’, which is contrary to the stand now taken by the respondent in their reply. It is submitted that findings of the learned Special Court to this effect were never challenged by the respondent.

7. Learned Senior Counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 23 of the impugned order dated 09.06.2023, wherein, it has been recorded the Enforcement Directorate/respondent never admitted that the petitioner was a ‘witness’, which is contrary to the statement made on behalf of the respondent recorded before the learned Special Court, Greater Bombay. It is further submitted that learned Special Court in the impugned order erred in giving a finding that the application of the respondent was never rejected; however, they were given an option to move the application for the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants before the learned Special Court PMLA, Delhi. It is further submitted that learned Special Court, Greater Bombay, had clearly observed that statement made by the respondent/ED was that the petitioner was being sought to be summoned as a ‘witness’, and thus, Non-Bailable Warrants cannot be issued for such a person. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court in paragraph 35 of the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 order has recorded that the petitioner was aware of the summons and, he ought to have appeared in pursuance of the summons issued to him, and, despite not being served in accordance with law, he should have appeared before the respondent and on account of such non-appearance, the Non- Bailable Warrants had been issued. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that such an observation is against the settled principle of law that the summons has to be served in the manner as provided under law and mere knowledge of such a summons would not be considered a proper service in accordance with law.

8. Learned Senior Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 17.02.2022 issued on behalf of the respondent regarding service of summons through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (hereinafter, referred to as ‘MLAT’), wherein, the status of the petitioner has been shown as a ‘witness’. The following columns have been highlighted: -

10. Status of the persons Witness to be served abroad (Witness/accused)

13. Any specific manner Service should be coupled with a in which a service receiving confirmation. has to be made

9. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 61 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘PMLA)’ provides as under: - “61. Procedure in respect of letter of request.—Every letter of request, summons or warrant, received by the Central Government Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 from, and every letter of request, summons or warrant, to be transmitted to a contracting State under this Chapter shall be transmitted to a contracting State or, as the case may be, sent to the concerned Court in India and in such form and in such manner as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.”

10. Learned Senior Counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the Comprehensive Guidelines formulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 04.12.2019 with regard to the investigation abroad and issue of Letter Rogatory (LRs)/ Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Request and Service of Summons/Notices/Judicial documents in respect of Criminal Matters, and in particular, to the following procedure prescribed in the said guidelines which is as under:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 “B. Important Points to be noted for making a Request for Service of Summons/Notices/Judicial Processes 1) It is to be noted that foreign Courts or authorities require at least a period of 10 weeks for transmission of request and service of summons/notices/judicial processes upon the person concerned. The next date of hearing/appearance for the case may be decided accordingly. 2) In the case of countries referred to in Figure 4.4 and other non- English speaking countries, the summons/notices/judicial documents should be accompanied with the certified/authenticated translation (in duplicate) in the official language of the country where such document is proposed to be served. 3) The documents are served by the Requested Country as per their domestic laws and procedure. 4) For the purpose of Figure 4.6 the issuing Authority shall be the Authority issuing summon/notice/judicial processes. 5) The execution of non-bailable warrants of arrest amounts to extradition. Hence, they do not come under the ambit of service of judicial documents. However, only the service and not the execution of Non-Bailable warrants can be done by IS-II Division, MHA. 6) The IS-II Division, MHA shall make endeavours to transmit summons/notices/judicial processes in cases relating to serious crimes against women and children to the Requested Country preferably within a period of ten working days. It is however clarified that the MHA cannot quantify the time period taken by the Requested Country summons/notices/judicial processes on the witness.” (emphasis supplied)

11. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioner by learned Senior Counsel that the summons were never served on the petitioner, who is citizen of England, United Kingdom, in the procedure prescribed, as noted hereinbefore, and in absence of the said procedure being followed, Non- Bailable Warrants could not have been issued. It is also pointed out that subsequently, a fresh MLAT request has been sent on 17.02.2025, which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 demonstrates that even the respondent admits that the summons were never served in accordance with law.

12. Reliance has been placed on the following judgements by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner: - (i) Parambot Thayunni Balakrishna Menon v. Govind Krishnan (Minor) & Anr.1 (ii) Rakesh Kumar v. Vijyanta Arya (DCP) & Ors.2 (paragraph 12) (iii) Satender Kunar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.3 (iv) Court on its own Motion vs. State in CRL. REF. 2/2019 4 (paragraph 3) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

13. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ED draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 09.06.2023 and highlighted the following paragraphs with regard to the role of the petitioner in the ongoing investigation carried on by the respondent: - 1 1958 SCC OnLine Mad 229 2 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5629 3 Vide order dated 21.01.2025 in SLP (Crl) No. 5191/2021 4 2020:DHC:1431-DB. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 “16. Qua the applicant/accused namely Mr. Sachin Dev Duggal further allegation is that Videocon Group has made payment to M/S Nivio Technology India Pvt. Ltd (Nivio India) amounting to INR 18,44,77,000/- during the period from 15.12.2008 to 2.1.2011. However, a loan agreement has been signed between Nivio India and VIL on 24.5.2011, whereby VIL had lend an amount of INR 17,31,98,430/-. It is alleged that said agreement was signed by applicant/accused Sachin Dev Duggal and P.N Dhoot on behalf of Nivio India and VIL respectively. This agreement appears to be afterthought and it needs further investigation.

17. Further allegation against the applicant/accused is that during the period from October 2011 to January 2012, Rs 17,10,32,473/- were returned by Nivio India to VIL and no interest has been charged by VIL on the said loan given to Nivio India, which further raises suspicion. Not only that, on 23.10.2011, a loan agreement of USD 2.5 million was signed between applicant/accused Sachin Dev Duggal and Jupiter Corporation, wherein Sachin Dev Duggal was lender and Jupiter Corporation was borrower. According to investigating agencies, this all is clearly indicating that VIL has transfered funds to applicant/accused Sachin Dev Duggal group of companies in India and correspondingly, they have transfered the fund to Videocon Group overseas companies.

18. It is the case of the ED that there are certain transactions between Videocon Group overseas companies and applicant/accused Sachin Dev Duggal Group of companies indicating transfer and siphoning of funds and it is alleged that applicant/accused Sachin Dev Duggal is involved in both the transaction that took place in India and abroad as well. According to ED, there are so many unexplained transactions related to applicant/accused Sachin Dev Duggal, for which his presence before the ED during enquiry is required.”

14. It was submitted on behalf of respondent/ED by learned Special Counsel that in the application moved before the learned Special Court, it had been clearly stated that the petitioner was a ‘suspect’. It is submitted that the reading of the application filed before learned Special Court would clearly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 demonstrate that the petitioner was shown as a ‘suspect’ in the ongoing investigation. It is submitted that it is clearly stated in the application that investigation by the respondent has come to a stand-still on account of non- cooperation of the present petitioner. It is further submitted that in the MLAT request, the petitioner has been shown as a ‘witness’ and as, at this stage, he is not an accused in the complaint case, and remains a suspect, therefore, the word ‘witness’ was used in the MLAT, and the same would not change the nature of investigation pending qua the present petitioner.

15. Learned Special Counsel submitted that the first summons was sent on

05.01.2022 to the present petitioner for appearance before the respondent on

27.01.2022. It is submitted that the summons was sent to the registered address of M/s Engineers.AI at 77B, Ground Floor, Sector 18, IFFCO Road, Gurugram, Haryana, by hand. Thereafter, an email was sent on 19.01.2022 from the respondent forwarding the scan copy of the summons for his personal appearance, and in response thereto, the petitioner sent an email dated 27.01.2022 seeking two weeks to respond on the pretext of being unwell. Subsequently, a request for MLAT through the Competent Authority was sent on 17.02.2022 and 19.10.2022, and the petitioner again sent a mail to the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, stating that, although he had not received the summon officially through the Court process in terms of the guidelines between India and the United Kingdom, and made a request to appear through Video Conferencing.

16. It is pointed out that in paragraph 35 of the impugned order, the learned Special Court has observed that the petitioner never denied that he Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 had visited India or the fact that he had information of issuance of process through emails to which he responded and in particular, the aforesaid email dated 27.01.2022, wherein, he sought time on the ground of illness. Similarly, it is pointed out that in his email dated 01.11.2022, the petitioner had written on behalf of M/s Engineers.AI India Pvt Ltd. (‘EIPL’), and in the said email, he wants to assist the investigation; however, he gives an option to appear through Video Conferencing. It is submitted that the mode and manner seeking appearance for investigation has been stated in the summons, and that the person who has been summoned cannot dictate as to how and when he would appear before the Court.

17. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ED further drew the attention of this Court to an email dated 08.12.2022 sent on behalf of petitioner showing again that he is ready to comply with summons; however, he did not appear in pursuance of the same. It is further submitted that the service through the MLAT is on the correct address which would be deemed service, and the same has been duly noted by learned Special Court in paragraph 25 of the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 while issuing Non- Bailable Warrants against the petitioner.

18. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the ED/respondent submits that the petitioner had filed an application, CRL.M.A. 6462/2025, before this Court seeking interim stay of summons dated 28.01.2025 issued by the respondent which was served on the petitioner vide an email dated

26.02.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner filed the aforesaid application along with an accompanying affidavit which was signed by him on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023

14.02.2025, i.e., much prior to the summons which were emailed to him. It is further pointed out that respondent had served summons to the petitioner through the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) through MLAT to the United Kingdom Authorities which were forwarded to the said authorities by the High Commission of India in UK on 18.02.2025. The said summons was forwarded by the respondent to the petitioner through email on 17.02.2025. Similarly, it is stated that the aforesaid application also has the copy of the prosecution complaint dated 18.12.2024 as an Annexure. It is pointed out that the copy of the Prosecution Complaint dated 18.12.2024 has not been served on the petitioner or any other person as the cognizance of the same is under consideration before learned Special Court PMLA. In circumstances, it is pointed out that the petitioner has unlawfully obtained the copy of the summons and the Prosecution Complaint to keep track of the investigation carried on by the investigating agency rather than appear before the Investigating Officer in response to the summons issued to him.

19. Learned Special Counsel drew attention of this Court towards the Procedure for Sending and Executing Request for Mutual Legal Assistant Treaty in terms of the aforesaid guidelines, and, in particular, towards the following: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023

20. It is submitted that figure 4.1 relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relates to process issued by the Court and not the summons Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 issued by the respondent, procedure for which has been described in the picture reproduced hereinabove.

21. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the ED/respondent draws attention of this Court to Sections 56 and 57 of the PMLA which read as under: - “56. Agreements with foreign countries- (1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for— (a) enforcing the provisions of this Act; (b) exchange of information for the prevention of any offence under this Act or under the corresponding law in force in that country or investigation of cases relating to any offence under this Act, and may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make such provisions as may be necessary for implementing the agreement. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the application of this Chapter in relation to a contracting State with which reciprocal arrangements have been made, shall be subject to such conditions, exceptions or qualifications as are specified in the said notification.

57. Letter of request to a contracting State in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) if, in the course of an investigation into an offence or other proceedings under this Act, an application is made to a Special Court by the Investigating Officer or any officer superior in rank to the Investigating Officer that any evidence is required in connection with investigation into an offence or proceedings under this Act and he is of the opinion that such evidence may be available in any place in a contracting State, and the Special Court, on being satisfied that such evidence is required in connection with the investigation into an 25 offence or proceedings under this Act, may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority in the contracting State competent to deal with such request to- (i) examine facts and circumstances of the case, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 (ii) take such steps as the Special Court may specify in such letter of request, and (iii) forward all the evidence so taken or collected to the Special Court issuing such letter of request. (2) The letter of request shall be transmitted in such manner as the Central Government may specify in this behalf. (3) Every statement recorded or document or thing received under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the evidence collected during the course of investigation.”

22. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the ED/respondent also submits that preliminary objections had been raised with regard to the maintainability of present petition on the following grounds: - A. Petition filed through Power of Attorney holder is not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments – (i) Amrinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)5; (ii) T.C. Mathai v. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram6; (iii) Amit Ahuja v. Gian Prakash Bhambri7 B. Warrants cannot be cancelled in absentia Reliance is placed upon the following judgment – (i) Ashok Malik v. M/S Soga Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.8 C. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants in aid of investigation Reliance is placed upon the following judgment – (i) Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI9 (Paragraphs 40-41 & 43.) 5 2022 SCC Online Del 24 6 (1999) 3 SCC 614. 7 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586. 8 2012 SCC Online Del 3464. 9 (1998) SCC Online Del 519, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 (ii) Sukhmeet Singh Anand v. State of NCT Delhi,10 D. Summons were issued in compliance with procedure and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Ministry of Home Affairs. REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that MLAT request sent in 2022 has never been served in accordance with law. It is submitted that even in written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent, it is not stated anywhere that the summons sent through MLAT were ever served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the procedure relied upon by the Special Counsel for the respondent during the course of hearing is contradictory to their own stand taken in the written submissions in which they have shown Figure 4.1, which has been relied upon by the petitioners to be the correct procedure for service of MLAT. It is further submitted that in the email dated 19.01.2022 sent on behalf of respondent, it is clearly admitted that summons sent through post at the registered address of M/s Engineers.AI were returned undelivered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been cooperating with investigating agency and supplying them every document. It is further submitted that Figure 4.6 in the guidelines which is a format for request of service of summons/notice of judicial process for purpose of MLAT is not the same as the one which was sent by respondent/ED and the said guidelines have not been followed by the respondent/ED. It is further 10 2018 SCC Online Del 10674 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 submitted that no concept of ‘deemed service’ exists, and every service has to be carried out in accordance with procedure established by law. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

24. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

25. After hearing the arguments, judgment was reserved for pronouncement on 13.05.2025; however, a legal issue with respect to interpretation of Section 73 of the CrPC was noted and since the arguments were not addressed by either of the parties on the same, the petition was re- listed for clarification on 27.05.2025 and thereafter, for further arguments.

26. Title of the application under Section 70 of the CrPC read with Section 65 of PMLA filed by the respondent/ED before learned Special Court PMLA, New Delhi, reads as under: - “APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 70 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 READ WITH SECTION 65 OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 (PMLA) FOR ISSUANCE OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANT AGAINST RESPONDENT”

27. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to relevant averments made along with the prayers sought by the respondent/ED in the aforesaid application filed before learned Special Court PMLA, New Delhi, which read thus: - “9. It is submitted that as the Respondent's presence is required for collecting crucial evidence and also all the other necessary information in the personal and exclusive knowledge of Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 summons by non-compliance of the Respondent and his noncooperative attitude justify the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against the Respondent to ensure that the Respondent submits to the process of law in India.

10. That Sh. Duggal has deliberately, intentionally and knowingly avoided his presence before the investigating officer in compliance to summons issued under section 50(2) & (3) of PMLA, which under the law are termed as judicial proceedings. It is submitted that this matter relates to cheating of Public Sector Banks involving huge funds and subsequent laundering of the same. The respondent has deliberately been disobeying the summons issued to him under 50(2) & (3) of PMLA, 2002.

11. That from the above, it is evident that the conduct of the respondent is non-cooperative towards the investigation and he will not appear before the investigating authority in the present investigation unless he is compelled by law to do so.

12. An application for issuance of open ended NBW was moved before the Hon’ble Special Court, Bombay PMLA MISC. APPLICATION NO. 170/2023. The PMLA Special Court, Bombay has vide order dated 03.02.2023 in PMLA MISC. APPLICATION NO. 170/2023 held that this Hon’ble court is the appropriate forum having jurisdiction for issuing Non-bailable warrant in the present case. (Annexure-I)

13. It is humbly submitted that during the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002 person summoned for the purpose of investigation is neither considered to be witness nor as an accused the persons so summoned is considered to be only suspect. To consider any person so summoned either witness or accused, it depends on the conclusion of the investigation. If during the course of the investigation and material in possession of the authority and also there is reasonable belief that such person is guilty of offence of Money Laundering then the investigating officer can arrest by invoking the section 19 of PMLA, 2002 after complying with necessary requirements. Since, Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal not attending before the competent authority though he has visited India. Since the suspect is not cooperating in the investigation the crucial evidences Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 could not be gathered hence this petition is being filed for issuance of NBW to proceed with the investigation and to secure his presence. **** **** **** PRAYER That in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case which reflects non-compliance of summons by Sh. Sachin Dev Duggal, it is humbly prayed that: i. An open-ended Non-Bailable Warrant may please be issued against the aforementioned respondent under Section 65 of PMLA, 2002 r/w Section 70 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ii. The Non-Bailable Warrant so issued may please be directed to be executed through the officers of the Enforcement Directorate in accordance with the law. iii. Any other order may please be passed as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” (emphasis supplied)

28. Power to issue warrant has been provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in Chapter VI Part B of the CrPC, 1973. The relevant provisions read as under: - “70. Form of warrant of arrest and duration. —(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court. (2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.

71. Power to direct security to be taken.—(1) Any Court issuing a warrant for the arrest of any person may in its discretion direct by endorsement on the warrant that, if such person executes a bond with sufficient sureties for his attendance before the Court at a specified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 time and thereafter until otherwise directed by the Court, the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall take such security and shall release such person from custody. (2) The endorsement shall state— (a) the number of sureties; (b) the amount in which they and the person for whose arrest the warrant is issued, are to be respectively bound; (c) the time at which he is to attend before the Court. (3) Whenever security is taken under this section, the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall forward the bond to the Court.

72. Warrants to whom directed.—(1) A warrant of arrest shall ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers; but the Court issuing such a warrant may, if its immediate execution is necessary and no police officer is immediately available, direct it to any other person or persons, and such person or persons shall execute the same. (2) When a warrant is directed to more officers or persons than one, it may be executed by all, or by any one or more of them.

73. Warrant may be directed to any person.—(1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non- bailable offence and is evading arrest. (2) Such person shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of the warrant, and shall execute it if the person for whose arrest it was issued, is in, or enters on, any land or other property under his charge. (3) When the person against whom such warrant is issued is arrested, he shall be made over with the warrant to the nearest police officer, who shall cause him to be taken before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, unless security is taken under section 71.”

29. It is admitted case that no prosecution complaint was filed before the learned Special Court against the present petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent that the learned Special Court had issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance which had not been complied with. The application moved on behalf of the respondent under Section 70 of the CrPC, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:20.12.2025 12:50:10 CRL.M.C. 4362/2023 essentially was to ensure that the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, however, it is nowhere stated in the said application that the petitioner at any stage was being summoned as an “accused”. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is a suspect; however, nowhere in the application it is stated that he is an accused at this stage. This distinction is material inasmuch as the Section 73 of the CrPC authorises the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class to issue non-bailable warrants against any person within his local jurisdiction for (a) the arrest of any escaped convict (b) proclaimed offender or (c) of any person who is accused of a non- bailable offence and is evading arrest.

30. It was submitted by learned Special Counsel for the respondent/ED that the application in the present case was filed under Section 70 of the CrPC which provides for “Form of warrant of arrest and duration” and falls in Chapter-VI Part B of the CrPC. It was further submitted that the said application clearly spelt out the purpose for which it was filed as the relief sought therein was issuance of non-bailable warrants. It was, thus, submitted that although the power for issuing non-bailable warrants has been provided under Section 73 of the CrPC; however, there is no specific provision which provides for filing an application. Therefore, the application under Section 70 of the CrPC was maintainable. Reliance has been placed on State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla11, particularly on paragraph 4 thereof; N. Mani v.