Court issue notices against cashew industrialist and mother on ED complaint

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam, has issued notices to a Kollam-based industrialist, engaged in cashew trade, and his mother, following a complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency accused them of repeatedly ignoring summons issued for their appearance.

The accused have been identified as Aneesh Babu, 34, of Ambalakkara in Kollam, and his mother, Anitha Babu, 54. The ED initiated investigations against them and others based on five different First Information Reports registered by the State police for offences including forgery and cheating. The complaint was filed by special public prosecutor M.J. Santosh. This is reportedly the first time in Kerala that action has been taken against individuals for disregarding ED summons.

Between September 2021 and December 2025, Mr. Babu was issued eight summons and his mother seven. He failed to appear on seven occasions and was non-cooperative on the one occasion he did attend. Ms. Babu failed to appear six times and did not produce relevant documents when she attended once. The ED alleged that the accused had no satisfactory explanation for their repeated non-attendance, thereby intentionally disobeying directions issued under Section 50 of the PMLA.

“As per Section 63(2)(c) of PMLA, 2002, any person to whom a summons is issued either to attend to give evidence or produce documents and omits to attend or produce documents shall pay a penalty of not less than ₹500 and up to ₹10,000 for each default or failure,” the agency noted.

‘Deliberate disobedience’

In its complaint, the ED submitted that the accused’s repeated non-attendance and failure to produce documents amounted to deliberate disobedience of lawful directions. This, it argued, prevented investigators from identifying the use and concealment of proceeds of crime.

On Mr. Babu’s bail plea, the Kerala High Courthad earlier observed that the “accused is not cooperating with the investigation and custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be necessary.” His anticipatory bail pleas were dismissed by the sessions court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court.