High Court Upholds Rejection of Discharge Application in PMLA Case

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the applicant's discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a PMLA case. The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in illegal money transfers and upheld the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA. The revision application was dismissed, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months. The applicant's plea for extending interim relief was also denied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 08.01.2018.
2. Discharge of the applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016.
3. Evaluation of prima facie evidence and the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing and Setting Aside the Judgment Dated 08.01.2018
The applicant requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 08.01.2018 passed below Ex. 13 in PMLA Case No. 02 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge and Designated Judge (PMLA) District Court Ahmedabad (Rural). The judgment arose out of ECIR/-1/AZO/2012 registered with the Enforcement Directorate, Ahmedabad. The applicant sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the pending PMLA case.

Issue 2: Discharge of the Applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The applicant was arrested on 31.07.2016 in connection with ECIR /01/AZO/2012, and after investigation, a complaint was filed for offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant argued that the scheduled offences were committed prior to the act coming into force and that there was no evidence of money laundering or proceeds of crime. The trial court rejected the discharge application on 08.01.2018, prompting the applicant to approach the High Court.

Issue 3: Evaluation of Prima Facie Evidence and the Burden of Proof under Section 24 of the PMLA
The court noted that at the stage of framing charges, the material should be evaluated to determine if there is a ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that the judge should not conduct a mini-trial but should consider if there is sufficient material for the accused to stand trial. The trial court had found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in illegal money transfers (Hawala) and credited amounts in the accounts of the applicant's family members in the USA. The burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA shifted to the accused to show that the proceeds of crime were untainted, which the applicant failed to do.

The High Court concluded that the trial court's order did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, and the revision application was dismissed. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months, preferably on a day-to-day basis. The applicant's request to extend interim relief was also rejected.

---