ED Summons by Email and Non-Appearance: Delhi Court Explains When Criminal Prosecution Can Fail

Direct Answer: An Enforcement Directorate summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 should never be casually ignored merely because it was received through email. However, where the ED subsequently initiates criminal prosecution for alleged non-attendance, it must prove the legal competence of the issuing officer, lawful and provable service of the summons, the person’s legal obligation to attend at the stated place and time, and intentional disobedience. In two judgments dated 22 January 2026, a Delhi court acquitted the accused because due service and intentional omission were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The ED has challenged those acquittals before the Delhi High Court, and the appellate proceedings remain material to the final legal position.

The judgments are important because they distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether the ED possesses statutory power to summon a person under Section 50 PMLA. The second is whether the prosecution has proved every ingredient of a separate penal offence arising from alleged failure to obey that summons. Recognition of the ED’s summoning power does not automatically establish criminal guilt for every instance of non-appearance.

Important: These decisions do not create a licence to disregard ED summons. They are trial-court acquittals based on the evidence, mode of service and alleged intent in the two complaints before that court. The judgments are presently under challenge before the Delhi High Court.

Case Snapshot

First Complaint

Court: Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-01, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
Presiding judicial officer: Mr. Paras Dalal, D.J.S.
Case name: Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) v. Arvind Kejriwal.
Case number: Ct. Cases 02 of 2024.
CNR number: DLCT12-000038-2024.
Date of institution: 3 February 2024.
Date of final judgment: 22 January 2026.
Neutral or reported citation: Not specified in the reported update or official source.
Time of pronouncement: Not specified in the reported update or official source.
Offence alleged: Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Summons considered: Three summons relating to appearances sought in 2023.
Final outcome: Acquittal.

Second Complaint

Court: Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-01, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
Presiding judicial officer: Mr. Paras Dalal, D.J.S.
Case name: Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) v. Arvind Kejriwal.
Case number: Ct. Cases 04 of 2024.
CNR number: DLCT12-000082-2024.
Date of institution: 6 March 2024.
Date of final judgment: 22 January 2026.
Neutral or reported citation: Not specified in the reported update or official source.
Time of pronouncement: Not specified in the reported update or official source.
Offence alleged: Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Summons considered: Three summons relating to appearances sought in 2024.
Final outcome: Acquittal.

Appellate Update

Appellate court: Delhi High Court.
Bench reported at the notice stage: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Date of first reported notice: 1 April 2026.
Date of reported fresh notice: 29 April 2026.
Date and time of reported legal update: The Indian Express report was first published on 1 April 2026 at 8:54 p.m. IST.
Present result of appeal: No final appellate judgment was located in the reliable indexed sources reviewed up to 22 July 2026.

Read the publicly available copy of the judgment in Ct. Cases 02 of 2024

Read the publicly available copy of the judgment in Ct. Cases 04 of 2024

What Is the ED’s Power Under Section 50 PMLA?

Section 50 PMLA grants specified authorities powers resembling those of a civil court for limited statutory purposes, including discovery and inspection, enforcing attendance, compelling production of records, and receiving evidence on affidavit.

Under Section 50(2), the competent authority may summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce records during an investigation or proceeding under the Act.

A person summoned under Section 50 is ordinarily required to:

Attend at the place and time specified in the summons;
State the truth on matters concerning which the person is examined;
Produce documents or records required by the summons;
Preserve relevant material and avoid destruction or alteration; and
Obtain a written adjournment or revised date where genuine inability prevents attendance.

The Delhi trial court did not hold that the ED lacked power to summon the accused. It expressly accepted that the relevant ED officers were legally competent public servants authorised to issue summons under Section 50(2). The acquittals arose because other ingredients of the alleged penal offence were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Read Section 50 PMLA on India Code

What Happens When a Person Does Not Attend an ED Summons?

Section 63 PMLA creates consequences for certain defaults connected with information, answers, signatures, attendance and production of records.

Under Section 63(2)(c), where a person summoned under Section 50 omits to attend or produce books, accounts or documents at the stated place and time, a monetary penalty may be imposed. The provision prescribes a penalty ranging from five hundred rupees to ten thousand rupees for each default or failure.

Before such a penalty order is passed, Section 63(3) requires an opportunity of hearing.

Section 63(4) further states that a person who intentionally disobeys a direction issued under Section 50 may also be proceeded against under the penal provision concerning non-attendance in obedience to an order of a competent public servant.

The alleged defaults in the two Delhi cases occurred when Section 174 IPC governed the general offence. Following commencement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on 1 July 2024, Section 208 BNS contains the corresponding general offence of intentional non-attendance. The precise provision and transitional treatment in any individual prosecution depend upon the date of the alleged default, the PMLA’s statutory wording, and applicable repeal-and-savings provisions.

Read Section 63 PMLA on India Code

Read Section 208 BNS on India Code

Four Ingredients Required for Criminal Prosecution

The trial court identified four broad ingredients that the prosecution was required to prove for the offence of non-attendance:

The person was legally bound to attend at a particular place and time;
The obligation arose from a summons, notice, order or proclamation;
The summons proceeded from a public servant legally competent to issue it; and
The person intentionally omitted to attend or intentionally departed before legally permitted to do so.

Criminal conviction requires all essential ingredients to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove lawful service or intentional omission may prevent conviction even where the authority had statutory power to issue the summons.

Key distinction: The existence of an ED summons and the existence of a criminal offence are not identical questions. The prosecution must prove that the summons created a legally enforceable obligation and that the omission to attend was intentional.

Why Did Service Through Email Become Important?

The ED relied substantially upon emails through which the summons were stated to have been transmitted. The defence questioned both the evidentiary proof of those emails and the legality of using email as the mode of service in the circumstances of the cases.

The court examined two distinct issues:

Whether the electronic records proving transmission and receipt had been properly established under the law of electronic evidence; and
Whether email-only transmission constituted lawful service under the procedural framework applicable to the summons.

The court found that the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution did not satisfy the required evidentiary foundation. It considered the certificates and supporting material insufficient to prove the relevant emails in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The court additionally held, on the statutory framework applicable to those pre-BNSS summonses, that email alone could not substitute the prescribed process of personal, extended or substituted service.

These findings were central to the acquittals because, without proof of lawful service, the prosecution could not establish that the accused had become legally bound to attend at the specified place and time.

Does Replying to an Email Automatically Prove Lawful Service?

The ED argued before the Delhi High Court that receipt was not genuinely disputed because replies had been sent on behalf of the accused. It contended that an admitted document should not require the same formal proof as a disputed electronic record.

The trial court nevertheless treated proof of the electronic summons and legality of the chosen mode of service as separate requirements. It held that acknowledgment or correspondence did not, by itself, cure every procedural and evidentiary defect alleged in the prosecution case.

This issue is now part of the ED’s challenge before the Delhi High Court. Therefore, it would be unsafe to state as a universal proposition that every summons sent through email is invalid, or that every acknowledged email necessarily constitutes legally sufficient service.

The safer present position is:

An emailed ED summons must not be ignored;
The recipient should verify its authenticity immediately;
The email, attachment, full headers and every reply should be preserved;
Any objection regarding service should be raised promptly and specifically;
The recipient should seek an authenticated copy where necessary;
Attendance or a written request for rescheduling should be addressed without delay; and
Defective service should not be assumed to provide automatic immunity from statutory consequences.

What Did the Court Say About Intentional Disobedience?

The prosecution was also required to prove that the non-attendance was intentional. Mere physical absence did not automatically establish the required mental element.

The court considered the fact that responses had been sent giving reasons for inability or unwillingness to attend on particular dates. It also examined whether those reasons had been promptly rejected and whether the accused had been expressly informed that attendance remained mandatory despite the request for another date.

The court found that the prosecution had not proved intentional disobedience beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that successive summons were issued after the period covered by the stated reasons had elapsed, which was treated as relevant to whether the earlier requests had effectively been accommodated.

This does not mean that sending any reply automatically excuses attendance. A vague, false, repetitive or unsupported excuse may be rejected. Intentional disobedience may be inferred from the complete conduct of the recipient, including avoidance, false addresses, destruction of evidence, repeated unsupported defaults or refusal to attend after a request for adjournment has been expressly rejected.

Difference Between Non-Appearance and Intentional Disobedience

Non-appearance is the factual circumstance that the person did not attend at the specified place and time.

Intentional disobedience requires an additional conclusion that the person deliberately chose not to obey a legally binding and properly communicated direction.

Factors relevant to intent may include:

Whether the summons was actually and lawfully received;
Whether the person acknowledged it;
Whether a reason for non-attendance was communicated before the appearance date;
Whether documentary proof supported the reason;
Whether the ED accepted, rejected or remained silent on the request;
Whether an alternative date was sought;
Whether the person later attended or continued to avoid attendance;
Whether the person produced the requested documents;
Whether different or contradictory excuses were repeatedly advanced; and
Whether the overall conduct demonstrates cooperation or deliberate evasion.

Electronic Evidence and the Section 65B Requirement

Where prosecution depends upon an email, downloaded attachment, electronic acknowledgment or server-generated record, the electronic material must be proved through legally admissible evidence.

In the two judgments, the court found deficiencies in the certificates produced to support the relevant emails. The court emphasised the need to identify the electronic record, device or system involved and establish authenticity in the legally prescribed manner.

For cases arising after commencement of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the corresponding electronic-record provisions must be examined under the new evidence statute. The underlying evidentiary concern remains authenticity, integrity, source and reliable proof of the electronic record.

Electronic Records a Recipient Should Preserve

The original email in the mailbox;
Complete sender and recipient details;
Full email headers;
The summons attachment in its original file format;
Digital signature details, where available;
Date and time of receipt;
Delivery or read receipts;
Every reply and forwarded communication;
Server or organisational-mail records, where relevant;
Any separate physical summons or postal envelope; and
Contemporaneous screenshots only as supplementary material, not as a substitute for the original data.

How Did the CrPC Apply to Service of an ED Summons?

The PMLA does not set out a complete independent mechanism for every procedural issue. Section 65 PMLA provides that the Code of Criminal Procedure applies insofar as its provisions are not inconsistent with the PMLA.

For the summons involved in the 2026 judgments, the trial court considered the earlier CrPC provisions relating to personal service, service when the person cannot be found, and substituted service.

The court reasoned that where the PMLA was silent concerning the particular mode of service, the investigating authority could not create a procedure inconsistent with the applicable criminal-procedure framework.

Read Section 65 PMLA on India Code

What Is the Position Under the BNSS?

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 commenced on 1 July 2024. Its provisions concerning service of court summons include personal service and, subject to prescribed rules, electronic communication in specified circumstances.

Section 64 BNSS provides that a summons should, where practicable, be personally served. Its proviso also contemplates electronic communication of a summons bearing the image of a court seal in the form and manner provided by State Government rules.

Sections 66 and 67 address service where the person cannot be found and where service cannot otherwise be effected.

However, the existence of electronic-service provisions for court summons does not by itself conclusively determine the procedure for every investigative summons issued by the ED under Section 50 PMLA. The source of power, applicable statutory rules, the nature of the summons, proof of transmission, the date of the alleged default and any departmental instructions must be examined.

Read the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Current Penal Provision: Section 208 BNS

Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 concerns intentional non-attendance in obedience to an order issued by a legally competent public servant.

For ordinary non-attendance, the section provides simple imprisonment which may extend to one month, or a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or both. A higher punishment is prescribed where the summons or order requires attendance or production before a court.

Section 215 BNSS restricts cognizance of offences falling within the relevant group, including Section 208 BNS, unless there is a written complaint by the concerned public servant, a superior public servant or another authorised public servant.

Read Section 215 BNSS on India Code

Why the Acquittals Do Not Decide the Main PMLA Allegations

The two complaints concerned alleged disobedience of summons. The court was not deciding the ultimate merits of every allegation in the underlying money-laundering investigation.

An acquittal for alleged non-attendance means that the prosecution failed to prove the distinct summons-disobedience charge beyond reasonable doubt. It does not automatically:

Quash the ECIR;
Terminate the underlying PMLA investigation;
Invalidate every summons issued in the investigation;
Determine whether proceeds of crime existed;
Decide the validity of attachment proceedings;
Decide the legality of arrest in another proceeding; or
Exonerate every person concerning the substantive PMLA allegations.

What Is the Effect of the Pending Delhi High Court Appeals?

The Enforcement Directorate challenged both acquittal judgments before the Delhi High Court. At the notice stage, the ED argued that receipt and response to the summons were not disputed and that the trial court had erred in insisting upon further electronic proof.

The Delhi High Court issued notice on 1 April 2026. A fresh notice was subsequently reported on 29 April 2026 because the earlier notice had not been served.

Until the appeals are finally decided, the trial-court judgments remain important persuasive decisions on their own facts, but they should not be presented as a final binding pronouncement of the Delhi High Court or Supreme Court on every ED summons served electronically.

Current legal caution: A recipient should not rely upon the trial-court acquittals as a reason to remain absent. The appropriate course is to respond, preserve evidence, seek clarification or adjournment where required, and obtain case-specific legal advice.

Stage-Wise Procedure After Receiving an ED Summons by Email

Stage 1: Verify Authenticity

Examine the sender’s official domain, name and designation of the issuing officer, ECIR or file reference, office address, date of appearance, statutory provision and digital signature or authentication details.

Do not communicate sensitive financial material to an unverified sender. Where authenticity is doubtful, confirm it through the officially published contact details of the concerned ED office rather than through a telephone number stated only in a suspicious message.

Stage 2: Preserve the Original Electronic Record

Do not delete, rename, edit or repeatedly convert the email attachment. Preserve the original email, metadata, headers and attachment. A printout may be created for working purposes, but it should not replace preservation of the original electronic record.

Stage 3: Read the Summons Carefully

Identify:

The capacity in which attendance appears to be sought;
The date, time and place of appearance;
The documents or information required;
Whether personal attendance is expressly directed;
The name and designation of the issuing authority; and
Any warning regarding statutory consequences.

Stage 4: Reply Promptly

A short acknowledgment may confirm receipt without making unnecessary factual admissions. The detailed response should be prepared after examining the summons, underlying transactions and document requirements.

Stage 5: Attend or Seek Time in Writing

Where attendance is possible, the person should prepare and appear on the stated date. Where genuine circumstances prevent attendance, a written request should be submitted before the date wherever practicable.

The request should:

State the genuine reason precisely;
Attach supporting documents;
Request a specific alternative date or reasonable period;
Confirm willingness to cooperate;
Offer production of documents that can be supplied immediately; and
Request written confirmation of the adjournment.

Stage 6: Record Whether the Request Was Accepted or Rejected

Silence should not automatically be treated as approval. Follow up through a traceable written communication. Where the ED expressly rejects the request and insists upon attendance, further absence creates a substantially greater legal risk.

Stage 7: Preserve Proof of Compliance

Retain entry passes, attendance acknowledgments, document-receipt memos, email acknowledgments, postal records and copies of every document produced.

Documents Required for Legal Review

Complete ED summons, including every page and annexure;
Original email and full email headers;
Physical envelope and delivery proof, if also served by post or hand;
Earlier and subsequent summons in the same investigation;
All replies sent to the ED;
Written adjournment requests;
ED’s acceptance, rejection or follow-up communication;
Medical records relied upon for inability to attend;
Travel records, court listings or official-duty documents where relevant;
Identity, business and company documents;
Records specifically demanded in the summons;
List of records unavailable and reasons for unavailability;
Document-production acknowledgment;
Chronology of all communications; and
Details of any penalty notice or criminal complaint already initiated.

Applicable Authority, Court and Jurisdiction

Enforcement Directorate Authority

The competent ED authority exercises power under Section 50 PMLA to summon, examine and require production of records.

Penalty Proceedings

A monetary penalty for omission to attend or produce records may arise under Section 63 PMLA after providing the affected person an opportunity of hearing.

Criminal Complaint for Intentional Disobedience

Where intentional disobedience is alleged, a written complaint may be instituted before the competent criminal court in accordance with the applicable penal and procedural provisions.

Special Court Under PMLA

The Special Court deals with offences under the PMLA. A separate summons-disobedience complaint may involve the ordinary criminal court depending upon the offence alleged and statutory route adopted.

High Court

Depending upon the procedural stage, a High Court may be approached through an appeal, revision, petition invoking inherent jurisdiction or constitutional proceeding. The appropriate remedy depends upon whether the challenge concerns summons, cognizance, an interim order, conviction, acquittal, penalty or abuse of process.

Limitation and Urgency

No single limitation period can be stated for every dispute involving an ED summons. The applicable period depends upon the nature of the proceeding, offence alleged, order challenged and remedy invoked.

From a practical perspective, action should be immediate. A request for adjournment sent after the appearance date may be viewed differently from a properly supported request submitted beforehand. Delay can also affect electronic evidence, email access, server records and the ability to prove the precise sequence of communications.

Possible Interim Relief

Depending upon the facts and stage, a person may seek appropriate relief such as:

A reasonable extension of time to appear;
Permission to produce documents in stages;
Clarification regarding the records demanded;
Consideration of medical inability or other genuine circumstances;
Exemption from a particular date where legally permissible;
Stay of a penalty order pending statutory challenge;
Stay of further proceedings in a criminal complaint in an exceptional case; or
Protection against coercive action where an independent legal ground is established.

Interim relief is discretionary and cannot be assumed merely because the recipient has questioned the mode of service.

Legal Grounds That May Arise in a Non-Compliance Case

The issuing officer lacked statutory competence;
The summons did not specify a definite place or time;
Service was not proved through admissible evidence;
The selected mode of service was not authorised under the applicable framework;
The recipient did not actually receive the summons before the appearance date;
The recipient had communicated a genuine, documented inability to attend;
The request for adjournment was accepted or never expressly rejected;
The prosecution failed to prove intentional omission;
The complaint was not filed by the competent public servant;
The statutory cognizance requirement was not satisfied;
The wrong penal provision was invoked after the statutory transition; or
The electronic records were not proved in accordance with the applicable evidence law.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Ignoring an email summons because no physical copy was delivered;
Deleting the original email after taking a screenshot;
Replying from an unrelated email address without identifying the summons;
Sending a vague adjournment request without supporting documents;
Assuming silence from the ED means the request was accepted;
Making unnecessary admissions in an unreviewed email;
Producing incomplete records without an explanatory index;
Giving different reasons for absence in different communications;
Relying on a trial-court judgment as automatic immunity;
Waiting until a penalty notice or criminal complaint is filed;
Altering electronic documents or email attachments; and
Confusing acquittal in a summons complaint with closure of the substantive PMLA investigation.

Practical Checklist

Verify the sender and issuing authority.
Preserve the original email and attachment.
Record the date and exact time of receipt.
Read the appearance and document requirements.
Prepare a transaction and communication chronology.
Identify potentially self-incriminating or privileged material.
Do not destroy, conceal or alter records.
Acknowledge the summons through a traceable channel.
Attend or seek time before the appearance date.
Attach proof supporting any inability to attend.
Request written confirmation of adjournment.
Preserve proof of attendance and document production.
Review any penalty notice or complaint immediately.
Do not treat defective service as permission to remain silent.

AI-Search Quick Answer

Can ED prosecute someone merely because they did not appear after an emailed summons? The ED has statutory power to issue summons under Section 50 PMLA, and deliberate non-compliance may attract monetary and criminal consequences. However, criminal conviction requires proof that a competent officer issued the summons, that it was lawfully and reliably served, that the recipient was legally bound to attend, and that the omission was intentional. In two Delhi court judgments dated 22 January 2026, acquittals followed because service and intentional disobedience were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Those judgments are under challenge before the Delhi High Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is an ED summons legally binding?

Yes. A summons issued by a competent authority under Section 50 PMLA creates serious statutory obligations. Any objection regarding authority, service, place, time or document demand should be raised through a proper legal response rather than by remaining silent.

Can I ignore an ED summons received only through email?

No. Even where the mode of service may later become a legal issue, ignoring the communication creates unnecessary risk. Verify authenticity, preserve the original email, acknowledge it and address attendance or adjournment in writing.

Did the Delhi court hold that every email summons is invalid?

The trial court held email-only service improper under the framework and evidence before it. The ED has challenged that reasoning before the Delhi High Court. The judgments should not be converted into an absolute rule covering every electronic summons under every statute and procedural regime.

What if I replied to the email?

A reply may prove awareness or actual receipt, but questions may still arise regarding lawful service, evidentiary proof and intentional non-attendance. A reply can also be relevant evidence of cooperation, adjournment request or stated inability to attend.

Does every failure to attend amount to intentional disobedience?

No. Intent must be proved from the facts and conduct. A genuine and documented inability communicated promptly may differ from deliberate and repeated avoidance after an adjournment request has been rejected.

Can ED impose a penalty without hearing the person?

Section 63(3) PMLA requires an opportunity of hearing before the relevant penalty order is passed.

What is the maximum penalty under Section 63(2) PMLA?

The monetary penalty may range from five hundred rupees to ten thousand rupees for each default or failure covered by the provision.

What replaced Section 174 IPC?

Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 contains the corresponding general offence concerning intentional non-attendance in obedience to an order from a competent public servant. Transitional and PMLA-specific issues must be examined according to the date of the alleged default.

Can the ED continue its main investigation despite acquittal in a summons case?

Yes. A summons-disobedience complaint is distinct from the substantive investigation into alleged money laundering. Acquittal in the former does not automatically terminate the latter.

Is the January 2026 judgment final?

No final appellate determination was located in the sources reviewed. The ED filed challenges and the Delhi High Court issued notice. The trial-court rulings therefore remain subject to appellate scrutiny.

Should reasons for non-attendance be supported by documents?

Yes. Medical incapacity, unavoidable court appearance, travel restriction or another genuine reason should be supported by reliable contemporaneous documents wherever available.

Can a lawyer appear instead of the summoned person?

Section 50 summons frequently requires personal attendance for examination. A lawyer’s communication or presence does not automatically substitute the summoned person’s attendance unless the competent authority or court permits such accommodation.

Key Takeaway

The 2026 Delhi judgments reinforce that statutory power, lawful service, admissible proof and intentional disobedience are separate legal requirements. The ED may possess full authority to summon a person, yet a criminal prosecution for non-attendance can still fail if due service or deliberate omission is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

For the recipient, however, the correct lesson is not to ignore electronic summons. The safer course is immediate verification, preservation of electronic evidence, timely written communication, lawful attendance or a properly supported request for another date.

Conclusion

The two acquittal judgments dated 22 January 2026 provide an important procedural analysis of ED summons, email service, electronic evidence and intentional disobedience. They clarify that mere absence is not necessarily equivalent to a proved criminal offence.

At the same time, the Enforcement Directorate has challenged the acquittals before the Delhi High Court. The appellate court’s eventual ruling may clarify whether acknowledgment and response cure alleged defects in electronic proof or mode of service, and how investigative summons should operate in an increasingly digital procedural environment.

Until that issue is finally settled, every recipient of an ED summons should proceed cautiously. The summons should be verified, preserved and answered promptly. Objections should be legally recorded, not assumed. Cooperation, document management and a consistent written chronology may become decisive if a later penalty or criminal complaint arises.

Legal Consultation

ED summons matters require examination of the summons, ECIR context, requested records, capacity in which the person is called, prior communications, electronic-service proof and risk of penalty or prosecution. The correct response must be based on the actual document and procedural stage.

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh
Patna High Court | District Court Practice
Contact: 8294431232
Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

Legal-information note: This article is intended for general legal awareness. It does not advise any person to avoid or disobey an ED summons. The appropriate response depends upon the summons, evidence, dates, applicable statutory regime and facts of the individual matter.

Follow legal updates from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh: Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google