- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.08.2010 passed by 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (PMLA). Ranchi passed in ECIR/02/ PAT/09/AD (Supplementary file), the copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-5 as well as the proceeding initiated under Section 82, Cr.P.C (Annexure-9) and the order dated 20.06.2011, the copy of which has been placed on record as part of Annexure-9.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially summoned as witness, which is apparent from Annexure-1 dated 5.4.2010. Since the petitioner was not available in the city, the petitioner's wife responded to the said notice and informed in writing to the Authority that the petitioner will not be available up-to 30.04.2010 as the petitioner went in meditation camp and was not likely to return before 30.04.2010. It is also submitted that thereafter, no serious efforts were made by the respondent so as to petitioner can know when he is to appear. However, instead of that, order dated 21.08.2010 was passed issuing warrant of arrest treating the petitioner as accused along with six other accused persons. It is submitted that one Rohitash Krishnam @ Rohitash Krish-nan and Saubhik Chattopadyay challenged the said order dated 21.08.2010 by preferring Cr.M.P. No. 1209 of 2010 and Cr.M.P. No. 1219 of 2010, wherein this Court allowed both the petitions and directed the petitioners to appear before the Court below within eight weeks from the date of the order with certain directions. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the case of prosecution and petitioner has been unnecessary dragged in the case of money laundering. Learned counsel for the petitioner draw my attention to the certain documents placed on record.;