33. The contention of the respondents is that the respondents have not reached the stage of Sections 5 and 17 and the proceedings are at a very preliminary stage. It thus appears that the summons are issued to the petitioners at a preliminary stage on the basis of the facts detected by the respondents in pursuant to the lodgment of two FIRs, it appears that the respondents intend to inquire into the fact as to whether properties in question or the petitioners herein are involved in either offence of money-laundering or are connected with such an offence or proceeds of crime or are in possession of such proceeds. Pertinently, in view of Section 65 of P.M.L. Act, the powers to search, seizure, attach, confiscate, investigate and all other proceedings under the Act can be performed with the assistance of the provisions made in the Cr.P.C. The respondents have frozen the accounts of the petitioners. Considering the fact that the Cr.P.C. is applicable as above at this stage, it cannot be said that an act of freezing the account is illegal. As noticed hereinabove, proviso to Section 17(1) indicates that the report under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. may not be necessary and therefore, freezing of accounts under Section 17(1-A) without such report is prima facie permissible. However, in view of the preliminary stage of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, no final verdict can be pronounced on that aspect. However, in this context, FFR Software Private Limited (supra) explains in detail the authority vested in the Directorate of Enforcement to freeze the properties preceding the provisional attachment under Section 5 of P.M.L. Act. Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the said case can be quoted herein for convenience:
