TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Legislative Assembly from Thirunelveli Assembly Constituency. The 6th respondent was a former State General Secretary (Organisation) for the Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents 5 and 6, had involved in an electoral offence case by transporting huge sum of money to the tune of nearly Rs. 4 crores which was intended for voter inducement. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered in Tambaram P.S. Crime No.177/2024, and later, it was transferred to CBCID and reassigned as Crime No.04/2024, for offences under Sections 171(C), 171(E), 171(F) and 188 IPC and the CBCID has thereafter altered the Sections to one under Sections 171(C), 171(E), 171(F), 120(b), 109, 420 read with 511 and 188 IPC, which are scheduled offences. 4. It is further stated that since the illegal gains generated through the aforesaid offences primarily constitute proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PML Act and as the case has been registered for the scheduled offence under the PML Act, the Enforcement Directorate [ED] is empowered to register an ECIR and investigate the case. However, the failure on the part of the ED to register the ECIR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that being the position, the relief sought for cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition seeking for a direction to the ED to register an ECIR is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Madhavan Pillai v. Rajendran Unnithan.S reported in MANU/SCOR/24144/2025. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, repelled the submissions regarding locus by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police reported in (2004) 3 SCC 767, and contended that even a politically motivated case is not a bar and the case could be considered on merits. The learned Senior Counsel also sought to distinguish the decision in the case of R.Madhavan Pillai (supra) by contending that, as the direction was issued by the High Court to register ECIR against the persons in the absence of them being arrayed as accused in the predicate case, the order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but however in the present case, the respondents 5 and 6 are already accused in the scheduled offence. 10. Heard the rival submissions and con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... schedule as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act, the authorised officer can register an ECIR based on the predicate offence and conduct an investigation. The procedures and powers for survey, search, seizure and arrest are prescribed in Chapter-V of the Act. Under every Section authorising for survey, search, seizure, or arrest, authorised officer on the basis of materials in his possession, based on the reasons to believe, which is recorded in writing, that an offence has been committed under Section 3, would proceed under various Sections in this Chapter. 15. Further, as per Section 5 under Chapter-III, the authorised officer can attach the property involved in money laundering based on the reasons to believe recorded in writing on the basis of materials in his possession and file necessary application before the adjudicating authority for retention of the seized property and for confirming the attachment. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) held that the ECIR is an internal document. ECIR is registered, based on existence of predicate case for scheduled offences and the prima facie satisfaction of the authorised officer from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he materials in his possession. 22. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Madhavan Pillai (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court, which directed the ED to register an ECIR, where the High Court prima facie came to the conclusion that there exists a predicate offence. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder; "5. According to us, the High Court had no reason to pass a drastic order of directing the Enforcement Directorate to register an ECIR only because the High Court prima facie came to a conclusion that a predicate offence exists. Therefore, we set aside that part of the impugned judgment by which a direction is issued to the Enforcement Directorate to register an ECIR. Therefore, the ECIR registered on the basis of the impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. We leave it to the Enforcement Directorate to take a call on the question of initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002." 23. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot direct the ED to register the ECIR merely on the finding ....