Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal's order setting aside the attachment in part and directing release of the properties warranted interference in the appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The impugned order was examined in the backdrop of earlier decisions of the same High Court arising from the same common order of the tribunal and involving substantially similar facts and reasoning. The Court found that the earlier Division Bench had already considered the tribunal's findings on the absence of valid reason to believe for provisional attachment, the alleged mechanical issue of notice under Section 8(1), and the related jurisdictional objections. In view of judicial propriety and the absence of any material justifying a different view, the Court followed the earlier precedent.

Conclusion: The appeal failed and the respondent's order remained undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the tribunal's decision and left the impugned order intact, resulting in dismissal of the enforcement agency's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a common tribunal order on provisional attachment under the PMLA has already been upheld or dealt with in earlier connected decisions on the same reasoning, and no distinguishing material is shown, judicial propriety warrants following the existing precedent and refusing interference.

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained to quash an attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when the provisional attachment had already been confirmed and the petitioner had a statutory remedy before the Special Court.

Analysis: The attachment had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the trial under that Act was pending before the Special Court for PMLA cases. In that situation, the petitioner was required to seek relief before the Special Court under Section 8(7) of the Act for lifting of the attachment, rather than invoke writ jurisdiction to set aside the attachment directly.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy before the Special Court under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in proceedings concerning alleged money-laundering offences.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner, as the principal managerial person, were materially more serious than those against the co-accused granted bail. The scale of the alleged proceeds of crime, statements of numerous victims, the abscondence of a co-accused, and seizure of a mobile phone from the petitioner while in custody supported an apprehension of misuse of liberty. Long incarceration and the asserted health grounds did not outweigh these factors; the medical material relied on was found unreliable. The statutory twin conditions for bail were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioners' arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was illegal for want of fresh tangible material and for reliance on stale material from earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires the authorised officer to possess material in hand, form a reason to believe on that material, record the reasons in writing, communicate the grounds of arrest, and comply with the forwarding and remand safeguards. The power of arrest is not a routine investigative measure and cannot be exercised on conjecture, recycled suspicion, or mere non-cooperation. The material relied on for arrest must be current, objective, and capable of supporting the statutory satisfaction that the person is guilty of money-laundering. Arrest cannot be sustained by using the same foundation that had earlier not resulted in arrest, especially when no summons were issued and no fresh incriminating material emerged from the subsequent search.

Conclusion: The arrest was held contrary to law because the statutory threshold under Section 19 was not met on the basis of fresh and tangible material; the petitioners were entitled to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is valid only when, on the material then in possession, the authorised officer records written reasons to believe supported by objective and current material, and the power cannot be used on stale or recycled material merely to continue or intensify investigation.

Issues: Whether bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be granted despite the stringent twin conditions under Section 45, in view of the petitioner's prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The allegations related to large-scale laundering of proceeds of crime arising from recruitment irregularities were found to be serious, and on merits the statutory hurdle under Section 45 was not easy to cross. At the same time, the petitioner had remained in custody for about 2 years and 3 months in the money-laundering case, had already obtained bail in the predicate cases after long custody, and the Court was required to test continued detention against Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court balanced the seriousness of the accusations, the apprehended risk of tampering and the gravity of economic offences against the delay in custody and the fact that the petitioner was not a public servant and no sanction was required against him.

Conclusion: Bail was granted, as prolonged incarceration and the overall factual matrix were considered sufficient to justify release notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45.

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the rigours of section 45, having regard to the petitioner's custody period, the stage of the investigation, and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a serious money-laundering case arising out of a large recruitment scam, and the Court was not satisfied on merits that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty or that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Ordinarily, the twin conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would bar release. However, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without trial can, in an appropriate case, outweigh the statutory rigours of section 45 when tested on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court took note of the petitioner's age, his relative role compared with other accused, the delay in taking him into custody in the PMLA case, the fact that he had already been granted bail in the predicate case, and the circumstance that the trial was not likely to conclude soon.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner notwithstanding the section 45 threshold.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution for money laundering; (ii) Whether an expert should be appointed to conduct a fresh inspection and valuation of granite waste.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution for money laundering.

Analysis: For prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the relevant inquiry is whether a scheduled predicate offence exists and whether proceeds of crime arising from it are involved. Challenges to the legality or adequacy of the predicate-offence investigation cannot be adjudicated in the money-laundering prosecution. At discharge, the test is whether the materials disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion; factual defences cannot be assessed through a mini-trial. The materials indicating that the petitioner held a 10.5% share, was a working partner, and had an interest in the business during the alleged illegal quarrying justified trial. The confirmation of attachment and the claim that the properties were acquired from independent income were matters requiring evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Discharge was rightly refused; the issue is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether an expert should be appointed to conduct a fresh inspection and valuation of granite waste.

Analysis: The valuation and loss quantification had been prepared by authorized Geology and Mining Department officials. Any defect in that report is a matter of evidence, and the prosecution must establish its case on the report it relies upon. A fresh expert report was not warranted, particularly as loss quantification principally concerns the predicate offence.

Conclusion: Appointment of a further expert was rightly declined; the issue is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The money-laundering prosecution may proceed to trial on the available materials, with the petitioner's factual defences to be tested through evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage in a money-laundering prosecution, the existence of a scheduled offence and prima facie material connecting the accused with proceeds of crime suffice; factual defences and challenges requiring evidentiary evaluation must await trial.

Issues: (i) Whether the order rejecting discharge suffered from legal error; (ii) Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case of money laundering against the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the order rejecting discharge suffered from legal error.

Analysis: The governing standard at the discharge stage is limited to whether the record and prosecution materials disclose sufficient ground to proceed. Defence material, detailed appreciation of evidence, and a mini trial are impermissible. Revisional interference is warranted only where there is patent illegality or the case is groundless on the face of the prosecution record. The impugned order was a reasoned order based on the complaint, statements, and investigation material.

Conclusion: The rejection of discharge did not suffer from legal error and called for no interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case of money laundering against the petitioner.

Analysis: The materials disclosed that the petitioner allegedly accumulated assets far beyond known salary income, routed cash through multiple bank accounts and insurance policies, and used family accounts to project tainted funds as untainted. The investigation also traced investments in immovable property and seizure of cash, which were treated as proceeds of crime under the PMLA. At this stage, the court was not required to test the defence explanation regarding agricultural income, dairy income, rental income, or the absence of prosecution of the wife in the predicate case. On the prosecution material, the essential ingredients of the offence under the PMLA were found to be present.

Conclusion: A prima facie case of money laundering was made out against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was held fit to proceed to trial, and the discharge plea was rejected on the basis that the complaint and investigation material disclosed sufficient grounds against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record and determine only whether there is ground for presuming the accused's involvement; where the materials disclose prima facie proceeds of crime, layering, and projection of tainted assets as untainted, discharge cannot be granted on the basis of defence material.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act.

Analysis: The Court considered the allegations of forged bank guarantees, supporting endorsements and electronic communications, together with statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and other investigative material. It held that the rival contentions regarding the applicant's knowledge, role, and alleged absence of proceeds of crime raise disputed questions of fact to be tested at trial. At the bail stage, the Court was not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence, but the material placed by the Directorate of Enforcement could not be ignored. On the material available, the Court was unable to record satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty of the offence alleged.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not satisfied and regular bail was declined.

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in the State case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 despite the statutory embargo in Section 21(4), having regard to prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the nature of their alleged roles; (ii) whether Deepak was entitled to bail in the money-laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, in view of the length of custody, Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and parity with co-accused.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in the State case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 despite the statutory embargo in Section 21(4), having regard to prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the nature of their alleged roles.

Analysis: The Court held that the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 required the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and the prima facie role of the accused to be assessed even where special bail restrictions applied. The petitioners had remained in custody for nearly five years, charges had only recently been framed, and the case involved numerous accused, witnesses, and voluminous material. On the prosecution version, their participation was confined to collection, transmission, and distribution of funds on instructions of others, which was characterised as financial and logistical facilitation rather than strategic command or conceptualisation of the alleged organised crime.

Conclusion: Bail was held to be warranted in the State case, and the petitioners were found entitled to release.

Issue (ii): whether Deepak was entitled to bail in the money-laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, in view of the length of custody, Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and parity with co-accused.

Analysis: Deepak had spent more than four years and nine months in custody, while the maximum sentence for the offence was seven years. The Court held that this period exceeded the threshold contemplated by Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could not defeat the constitutional and statutory consequence of such prolonged detention. The Court also noted that a substantial number of co-accused had already been granted bail, including persons alleged to have played more serious roles in laundering or handling the proceeds of crime, and held that Deepak stood on no graver footing.

Conclusion: Deepak was held entitled to bail in the PMLA proceedings as well.

Final Conclusion: The Court enlarged the petitioners on bail in the State case, and Deepak was also enlarged on bail in the PMLA proceedings, subject to conditions, on the footing that prolonged incarceration had outweighed the statutory restrictions in the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional protection against prolonged pre-trial incarceration under Article 21 can justify bail even under special statutes with stringent bail conditions, where the custody period is substantial, the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, and the accused's alleged role is limited to facilitative conduct rather than strategic control.

Issues: (i) Whether the ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate was amenable to quashing; (ii) whether summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be issued in the absence of a prior FIR or complaint in respect of a scheduled offence; (iii) whether civil action under Sections 5 and 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required prior registration of a scheduled offence; and (iv) whether immunity granted in settlement proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 barred proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue: Whether the ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate was amenable to quashing.

Analysis: The ECIR was held to be only an internal, non-statutory document of the Enforcement Directorate. The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not require registration of an ECIR, and non-registration of such a document does not impede inquiry, attachment, or other civil action under the Act. Since ECIR is not a statutory prerequisite and has no independent legal status akin to an FIR, a prayer to quash it was held to be misconceived.

Conclusion: The ECIR could not be quashed.

Issue: Whether summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be issued in the absence of a prior FIR or complaint in respect of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: Section 50 powers were treated as part of the inquiry machinery under the Act, meant for collection of evidence and information concerning proceeds of crime. The summons stage was held not to be prosecution and the recipient of summons does not assume the status of an accused merely by reason of such summons. The absence of a prior FIR or complaint involving a scheduled offence was therefore not a bar to issuing summons.

Conclusion: Prior registration of a scheduled offence was not required for summons under Section 50.

Issue: Whether civil action under Sections 5 and 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required prior registration of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The Court reiterated the distinction between the civil and penal limbs of the Act. Civil action for attachment, inquiry, and collection of evidence may commence on the basis of information indicating proceeds of crime, even before a scheduled offence is formally registered. By contrast, prosecution for the offence of money laundering requires the foundational existence of a scheduled offence. The non-registration of a scheduled offence or the failure to act on information under Section 66(2) did not invalidate civil action already initiated by the Enforcement Directorate.

Conclusion: Prior registration of a scheduled offence was not necessary for civil action under the Act.

Issue: Whether immunity granted in settlement proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 barred proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The immunity contemplated by Section 245H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held to operate only within that enactment and, by its own terms, does not extend to offences under the Indian Penal Code or other Central enactments. The settlement proceedings under the Income-tax Act addressed tax disclosure and related consequences, whereas proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 concern proceeds of crime and a distinct statutory regime. The settlement order therefore did not preclude inquiry under the money-laundering .

Conclusion: The settlement immunity did not bar proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed. The writ petition was rightly rejected, and the Enforcement Directorate was held entitled to continue the inquiry and issue summons notwithstanding the absence of a prior FIR or complaint at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, inquiry, summons, and provisional civil action may proceed on information indicating proceeds of crime without prior registration of a scheduled offence, while prosecution for money laundering requires the foundational existence of such a scheduled offence; an ECIR is only an internal, non-statutory record and its quashing is not maintainable as an independent remedy.

Issues: Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions for regular bail in a money-laundering prosecution.

Analysis: The ECIR was founded on both the quashed EOW FIR and the surviving crime registered at Habibganj Police Station. The earlier coordinate-bench determination that the latter crime constituted a scheduled offence remained operative; therefore, the quashing of the EOW FIR and the applicant's absence from the police charge-sheet did not establish absence of a scheduled offence or exclude money-laundering liability. Money laundering concerns involvement in processes connected with proceeds of crime and may be independently prosecuted even where the person is not an accused in the predicate offence.

Analysis: Statements recorded under Section 50, witness material, forged laboratory reports, export clearances, false invoices, adulteration allegations, and receipts credited to the company provided prima facie material of the applicant's knowledge and involvement. The three-month detention after filing of the complaint did not demonstrate a violation of the right to expeditious trial. The medical material also did not establish sickness or infirmity warranting release. The applicant consequently failed to meet the twin conditions governing bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was refused as the applicant was not shown to satisfy the statutory requirements for release in the money-laundering case.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the provisional attachment order passed under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was vitiated for want of the requisite recorded satisfaction based on material showing immediate necessity of attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The existence of remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority did not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge was to a jurisdictional defect. A complaint that the competent authority had not complied with the mandatory procedure under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act raised a question that was not capable of effective redress in the confirmation proceedings under Section 8.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and could be entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment order passed under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was vitiated for want of the requisite recorded satisfaction based on material showing immediate necessity of attachment.

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 5(1) required the competent authority to form and record reasons, on the basis of material in possession, that immediate attachment was necessary because non-attachment was likely to frustrate proceedings under the Act. The recorded reasons in the impugned order were held to be a general reproduction of statutory language and did not disclose objective material linking the properties to an imminent risk of frustration of proceedings. The Court held that the material relied upon showed, at best, the alleged commission of offences, but not the distinct statutory satisfaction required for exercise of power under the second proviso.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment order was invalid and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned provisional attachment and the consequential proceedings founded on it were quashed, while liberty was preserved to proceed afresh in accordance with law if the statutory requirements are duly satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute conditions provisional attachment on a recorded, material-based satisfaction of immediate necessity, a mere reiteration of statutory language without objective nexus to frustration of proceedings renders the attachment unsustainable; such a jurisdictional defect can be examined in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternative remedies.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of prolonged custody, the stage of the proceedings, and the likely delay in trial.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which imposes stringent twin conditions for bail. At the same time, the Court balanced those rigours against Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the right to personal liberty and speedy trial. The investigation qua the applicant had concluded, the prosecution complaint had been filed, cognizance had been taken, and the matter remained at the stage of scrutiny and supply of documents. The applicant had remained in custody for about ten months, the predicate investigation had not culminated in filing of a chargesheet, the prosecution had cited a large number of witnesses and voluminous documentary material, and there was no realistic likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. The evidence was primarily documentary and already collected.

Conclusion: The rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were treated as sufficiently addressed for the limited purpose of bail, and further incarceration was held unwarranted. Bail was granted to the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the applicant was directed to be released on bail, subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prolonged pre-trial incarceration and an inordinate delay in the commencement or conclusion of trial may justify bail where the evidence is substantially documentary and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 outweighs continued detention despite the statutory rigour of Section 45.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 in view of the alleged role, the quantum of transactions attributed to him, the absence of prima facie material showing proceeds of crime, parity with a co-accused, and the length of pre-trial custody.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner were assessed against the statutory rigour of the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's association with PFI and SDPI, by itself, and the existence of an email handle or phone contacts reflecting those entities, was held insufficient to deny bail without corroborative material linking those indicators to specific money-laundering acts. The petitioner was also noticed to have been arrayed as an accused only in the 7th supplementary prosecution complaint, while the transactions attributed to him were comparatively small in the context of the alleged overall inflows into SDPI's accounts. The Court further noted that the amount traceable to the petitioner was far below the monetary threshold referred to in the proviso to Section 45 and that, prima facie, the prosecution had not demonstrated how the funds were derived from a scheduled offence so as to constitute proceeds of crime. The protracted custody of the petitioner and the parity principle arising from the bail granted to a co-accused also weighed in favour of release.

Conclusion: The petitioner satisfied the requirements for grant of regular bail and was entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR discloses the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or criminal conspiracy so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings; (ii) Whether the PMLA investigation and ECIR can survive when the predicate allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence and no substantive material shows money laundering or proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR discloses the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or criminal conspiracy so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings

Analysis: The allegations rested on receipt of foreign investment, valuation of shares, and expenditure of company funds. The Court found that the foreign investor was not shown to be an aggrieved person who had been deceived, and no entrustment of property was shown to sustain criminal breach of trust. The investment transaction was treated as a commercial arrangement, supported by valuation material and regulatory correspondence, and the mere allegation of a high share premium did not establish dishonesty, inducement, or an unlawful agreement. The allegation of conspiracy was held to be unsupported by any material showing an illegal objective or illegal means.

Conclusion: No offence under Sections 406, 420, or 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out, and the FIR was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the PMLA investigation and ECIR can survive when the predicate allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence and no substantive material shows money laundering or proceeds of crime

Analysis: The PMLA proceedings were founded on the same factual basis as the FIR. Once the predicate allegations were found not to disclose a cognizable offence, the substratum for money laundering proceedings fell away. The Court also noted the absence of any concrete material showing proceeds of crime, and held that the investigation had not yielded incriminating material sufficient to sustain action under the PMLA. In view of the quashing of the predicate FIR, the ECIR and proceedings emanating from it could not stand independently. The request for supply of the ECIR consequently became unnecessary.

Conclusion: The ECIR and the PMLA proceedings were quashed, and the prayer for supply of the ECIR became infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The criminal and money-laundering proceedings were held unsustainable on the facts and law, and the connected writ petitions were finally allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A money-laundering prosecution cannot survive without a legally sustainable predicate offence, and a commercial investment transaction does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust in the absence of dishonest inducement, entrustment, or material showing an illegal conspiracy.

Issues: (i) Whether the petition invoking inherent and supervisory jurisdiction was maintainable despite the availability of revision; (ii) Whether the arrest and pre-cognizance remands were illegal for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure; (iii) Whether cognizance of the prosecution complaint could be taken without affording the accused a hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; (iv) Whether remands exceeding fifteen days warranted release on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the petition invoking inherent and supervisory jurisdiction was maintainable despite the availability of revision.

Analysis: The availability of a revisional remedy does not create an absolute bar to inherent jurisdiction. The nomenclature of proceedings is not decisive, and inherent powers may be exercised where required to address exceptional circumstances affecting fundamental rights and personal liberty.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest and pre-cognizance remands were illegal for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The chronology established that the petitioner was formally arrested during authorised jail examination, produced within twenty-four hours before the Duty Magistrate, and thereafter produced before the Special Court. The procedure under Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as complied with.

Conclusion: The arrest and consequent pre-cognizance remands were not illegal, against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether cognizance of the prosecution complaint could be taken without affording the accused a hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: Sections 44, 46 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply the criminal procedure law to proceedings before the Special Court. For a complaint filed after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force, Chapter XVI, including Section 223, applies to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of that Act. The proviso to Section 223(1) prohibits cognizance without an opportunity of hearing to the accused.

Conclusion: The cognizance order made without a pre-cognizance hearing was legally unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether remands exceeding fifteen days warranted release on bail.

Analysis: Upon setting aside cognizance, custody was governed by Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A remand for two months at one time contravened the statutory fifteen-day limit. However, the petitioner had not objected at the relevant times, had suffered no demonstrated prejudice, and continued to be in judicial custody without any bail order. Bail in a money-laundering case requires consideration under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The excess-period remand did not entitle the petitioner to immediate release; the petitioner may seek bail before the competent court, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The cognizance process must recommence only after affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, while custody and any claim for bail remain to be addressed in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 filed after commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires a pre-cognizance hearing under the proviso to Section 223(1).

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal could be condoned; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's directions regarding release and retention of seized documents and digital devices suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was re-filed after a delay of 225 days. The explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The Court noted that the appeal papers were substantially typed and photocopied, and that Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 prescribes a strict time limit for appeal, permitting only a limited extension on sufficient cause being shown.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's directions regarding release and retention of seized documents and digital devices suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had directed release of documents and digital devices not forming part of the prosecution complaint, while retaining those which did form part of the complaint and permitting their use subject to the terms recorded. The Court found no infirmity in those directions and held that, to the extent the appellant sought enforcement or further relief, the proper course was to avail the remedy under Section 35(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and was dismissed, with liberty to the appellant to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a strict appellate limitation with a limited power of extension, an unexplained and excessive delay in re-filing cannot be condoned, and appellate interference is unwarranted where the impugned directions disclose no legal infirmity and an alternate statutory remedy remains available.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can commence in the absence of an FIR in respect of a scheduled offence; (iii) whether immunity granted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; and (iv) whether the respondent's powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are dependent on the final report of the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether subsequent filing of a complaint by the SFIO can be considered.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: A summons under Section 50 merely requires attendance, statement, and production of records in aid of investigation. It does not by itself create an adverse civil consequence or a completed cause of action. The challenge was directed at the investigation stage, and the summons did not justify judicial interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and not maintainable against the summons.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can commence in the absence of an FIR in respect of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits inquiry and investigation on the basis of material relating to proceeds of crime, and the Supreme Court has held that absence of an FIR does not bar commencement of inquiry or investigation. The summons in the present case was issued only for investigation, and the Court followed the settled position that registration of an FIR is not a precondition.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can commence without an FIR in respect of the scheduled offence.

Issue (iii): Whether immunity granted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The immunity under Section 245H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to prosecution under that Act and, in the present statutory setting, does not extend to prosecution or proceedings under other Central enactments for applications made after 01.06.2007. The settlement machinery under the Income-tax Act does not deal with money-laundering proceedings.

Conclusion: The immunity granted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not protect the petitioners from proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (iv): Whether the respondent's powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are dependent on the final report of the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether subsequent filing of a complaint by the SFIO can be considered.

Analysis: The authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not conditioned on the completion of SFIO proceedings or on a final report under the Companies Act, 2013. The Court also held that subsequent events existing before judgment can be taken into account, and the later filing of the SFIO complaint removed the factual foundation of the petitioners' objection that there was no scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The respondent's powers are not dependent on the SFIO final report, and the subsequent SFIO complaint could be considered.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summons and the investigation failed on all material grounds, and no interference was warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at the investigation stage is not ordinarily amenable to writ interference, and initiation of inquiry under the Act does not require a prior FIR where the statutory material indicates a possible scheduled offence and proceeds of crime.

Issues: (i) Whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to complaint proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, including proceedings against corporate accused; (ii) whether summons issued without the mandatory pre-cognizance notice and supply of complaint under Section 227(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to complaint proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, including proceedings against corporate accused.

Analysis: The pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing mandated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) applies to complaint proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The protection is not confined to natural persons and extends to corporate accused as well, since a company can be proceeded against along with its officers and persons in charge under Section 70 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The statutory safeguard is necessary where cognizance is taken and process is issued in a complaint case.

Conclusion: The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to PMLA complaint proceedings and to corporate accused.

Issue (ii): Whether summons issued without the mandatory pre-cognizance notice and supply of complaint under Section 227(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The mandatory notice contemplated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) was not complied with, and the complaint copies required under Section 227(3) were also not furnished. Since these procedural requirements are mandatory before cognizance and issuance of process, their breach vitiates the proceedings and renders the summons unsustainable in law.

Conclusion: The impugned summons were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure.

Final Conclusion: The summons were quashed and the matter was left open for reconsideration by the trial court after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In complaint proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the pre-cognizance hearing mandated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is mandatory and applies equally to corporate accused; failure to comply vitiates the proceedings.