learned ASG is right in contending that by that time, the Applicant was aware that search was carried out, panchanama was drawn, and what was the material. The summons was in respect of the same search. The Respondent- Directorate, in the course of the investigation, then issued a second summons wherein it was made clear to the Applicant that the Applicant should remain present in connection with the evidence collected and the statements recorded. The Applicant gave a lengthy reply and again reiterated that he should be given a copy of the ECIR. The reply was also under the belief that once his statement was recorded on 25 June 2021 during the search, it need not be recorded again, which is an incorrect position. Thereafter two persons were arrested after the search, and they had given their statements. Therefore, the matter had travelled beyond the ECIR, which is only a document at the inception. The third summons issued on 2 July 2021 was accompanied by a detailed letter. This letter clarified that the Applicant's presence is required to confront the evidence collected, including the statements recorded. The Respondent- Directorate informed the Applicant that he was adopting dilatory tactics, the ECIR is only an internal document, and it is a settled position that the investigating agency will decide the mode and manner of investigation, and it cannot be dictated. Pursuant to this summons also, the Applicant did not appear and sent a reply running into 20 paragraphs. By that time, the Applicant had become a defaulter, having not produced documents and not having appeared pursuant to the summons, yet the Respondent- Directorate
