KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has held that the service of summons or notices through electronic mail constitutes valid service in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), addressing a procedural challenge raised in a writ petition.
The case arose from a petition seeking to quash a show cause notice dated November 25, 2025, issued under Section 8(1) of the PMLA. The petitioner also sought directions for the supply of all “Relied Upon Documents” referenced by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.
The proceedings stemmed from a search conducted at the petitioner’s residence, during which ₹25,50,000 in cash, along with digital devices and documents, were seized. Following the search, the ED moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking retention of the seized materials under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act.
FutureCrime Summit 2026 Calls for Speakers From Government, Industry and Academia
Dispute Over Documents and Notice
Pursuant to the ED’s application, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice requiring the petitioner to explain why the seized properties should not be retained.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the respondents had failed to supply the complete set of “Relied Upon Documents” in accordance with Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013. This, the petitioner argued, hindered the ability to file an effective response to the notice.
The respondents, however, maintained that key documents, including the original application and several relied-upon materials, had already been furnished electronically via email.
Court’s Interpretation of Service Rules
Examining the procedural framework, the Court analyzed Rule 13 of the 2013 Regulations, which governs the service of summons and notices in PMLA proceedings. The rule explicitly provides for multiple modes of service, including personal delivery, registered post, courier, and electronic communication.
The Court observed that the statutory scheme clearly recognizes electronic transmission as a valid mode of service. It further noted that Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 supports the legal recognition of electronic communication.
In the present case, the Court found that the notice had been served upon the petitioner through email and that the petitioner had received it along with certain documents in electronic form. The Court rejected the argument that service was invalid merely because the documents were not supplied in a bound physical format.
The bench, led by Justice Krishna Rao, emphasized that electronic service, when effected in accordance with the statutory framework, satisfies the requirements of due process.
Scope of Adjudicating Authority’s Powers
The Court also addressed the scope of the Adjudicating Authority’s powers under the PMLA, noting that they are analogous to those of a civil court. These include the authority to permit discovery and inspection of documents, enforce attendance, examine individuals under oath, compel production of records, and receive evidence on affidavits.
The question of whether additional documents sought by the petitioner qualified as “Relied Upon Documents,” the Court observed, falls within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority and must be determined in accordance with law.
In its reasoning, the Court referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Naresh Jain v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2019), reiterating that powers exercised under the PMLA must rest on reasonable grounds and remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
Directions and Outcome
Concluding the matter, the Court held that service of notice through electronic mail constitutes valid service under the statutory framework governing PMLA proceedings.
The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the Adjudicating Authority determine whether the documents sought by the petitioner constitute “Relied Upon Documents” and, if so, direct the Enforcement Directorate to supply them.
The Court further directed that if additional documents are furnished, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to file a supplementary reply before the Adjudicating Authority.
