TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the petitioner for the offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(in short PMLA, 2002) has been rejected. 4. Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2026 is directed against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 02 of 2023 registered for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whereby and whereunder, the charge has been framed against the petitioner. Factual Matrix: 7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the instant petitions which require to be enumerated herein, read as under: (i) An ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was registered on 17.09.2020 and investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR bearing No. 13 of 2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB Jamshedpur for the offence under section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption,2018 and on completion of investigation charge-sheet No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 was filed by ACB Jamshedpur against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan under section 7(b) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the same is taken on 22.08.2023. (vi) During further course of investigation searches were conducted on 06-05-2024, 07-05-2024, 08-05-2024, 09-05-2024, 10-05-2024 and 24-05-2024 under section 17 of the PMLA, 2002 in the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, Munna Singh, Kuldip Kumar Minz, Vikash Kumar, Raj Kumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey,Rajiv Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar and Santosh Kumar at various places. As a result of the search, huge cash was recovered and seized from the residential premises of Jahangir Alam situated at Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi. (vii) Further, huge cash have been recovered and seized from the residential premises of Munna Singh situated at Flat No. 1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi. Munna Singh stated that he used to collect cash from the engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal. Searches were also conducted at the residences of Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey and Amit Kumar. (vii) Accordingly, on 07-05-2024 Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir Al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umar Lal in September 2022. (xii) It is also alleged that the petitioner is found to be directly indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of at least Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also been found to be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime. (xiii) A supplementary prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 is filed before the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi on 04.07.2024 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav, Hirdya Nand Tiwari, Alamgir Alam, the present petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir Alam and the cognizance of the same is taken on 12.07.2024. (xiv) Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 2190 of 2024 for grant of bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. (xv) Consequent thereto present petitioner has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner accused is not named in the first supplementary prosecution complaint vide ECIR No. 02/2023 which was filed against other co-accused persons and second supplementary prosecution complaint in which petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused by the ED. 12. It is further submitted that Section 197 of Cr.P.C. provides that when any public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except with previous sanction of the competent authority. 13. It has been contended that in terms of section 5 and 8 of PMLA, 2002 the provisions relating to attachment of the property, which has been seized under section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Adjudicating Authority pass the order of attachment if it has reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 or is in possession of Proceed of Crime. In the instant case neither any provisional attachment order has been passed under section 5 of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other evidence in the possession of prosecuting agency to lend corroboration to the statements being relied upon. 18. There is no documentary evidence on record direct or indirect which establish that the petitioner had received commission of Rs. 3 Crore on one instance in September, 2002 and charges cannot be framed without any material evidence or recovery to support the allegations against the petitioner. There is no evidence linking the present petitioner with the alleged proceeds of crime. 19. It is further submitted that the alleged documents seized from the premises of Jahangir Alam pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar Lal including several torn pages of few diaries and notes with abbreviations cannot be read as evidence against the petitioner. The code names written on the torn pages cannot be connected with the petitioner by any means and those code words are based on the respondent agency's assumptions and manipulations. 20. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the foundation facts regarding the involvement of the petitioner in any process or activity related to the proceeds of crime, therefore, no presumption u/s 24 of the PMLA, 2002 can be tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers and further a supplementary complaint was filed against Veerendra Kumar Ram and nine others on 20.08.2023 with the allegation that Mukesh Mittal is involved in Proceeds of Crime worth of Rs. 35,77,117.94/-. 24. It is stated that till the submission of complaint dated-21.04.2023 and supplementary complaint dated-20.08.2023 no involvement of the petitioner was surfaced even after recording of the statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that no case of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 and punishable under section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 is made out against the petitioner and as such he is liable to discharge from the instant case. Arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent: 26. Ld. Counsel for respondent-E.D. has opposed the prayer for discharge and submitted that there are ample evidence against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the offence of money laundering. 27. It is submitted that a total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons. 31. It has been contended that the co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram during his statement made u/s 50 of PMLA stated that in one of the instances crores of commission were handed over to the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS of the present petitioner, in September 2022. 32. The petitioner Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development (RDD) Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development Special Division (RDSD) are the part of the Department of Rural Works (RWD). RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs the roads and bridges in the state of Jharkhand, for which tenders are floated by these departments, against which 3% commission has been collected. He being the minister of these departments, is all in all and at the top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection. He has pressurized and compelled the Chief Engineer under his portfolio to collect commission and give him his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... background of the factual aspect as referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, the issues which require consideration are that: (i) Whether the orders dated 03.12.2024 and 07.12.2024 by which the application for discharge filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and charges have been framed respectively, can be said to suffer from an error? (ii) Whether on the basis of the evidence which has been collected in course of investigation, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out or not? 40. Since both the issues are interlinked as such, they are taken up together. 41. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provisions of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent. 42. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money laundering and also to prose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. 47. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. 48. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under: "21(y) "scheduled offence" means- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 53. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. 54. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002. 55. It is evident that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of money laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the date of commitment of the case under section 232 (BNSS). (2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so." 60. Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC' for brevity) contemplates discharge by the Court of Session. The trial Judge is required to discharge the accused if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Section 250(2) BNSS corresponds to section 227 CrPC. Section 250(1) BNSS stipulates a time limit of 60 days from the date of committal of the case within which an application for discharge should be filed by the accused. 61. Section 239 CrPC provides for discharge of accused in warrant cases instituted upon a police report. The power under section 239 Cr.P.C. is exercisable when Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. Section 262(2) BNSS is similar to section 239 CrPC but section 262 BN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. 32.4. While passing the impugned orders [N. Suresh Rajan v. Inspector of Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380], one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice which stares the court in the face. The opinion on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715. 66. Further, the difference between the approach with which the Court should examine the matter in the discharge has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, in the following words:- "17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the parties would not by itself alter the status of the allegations constituting the criminal offence." 68. Thus, it is evident that the law regarding the approach to be adopted by the Court while considering an application for discharge of the accused person the Court has to form a definite opinion, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 69. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further dealt with the proper basis for framing of charge in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) wherein, at paragraphs 11, 12 and 14, it has been held as under: "11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record." 72. In the case of Asim Shariff v. NIA, (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame the charge against him and after that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge and, if not, he will discharge the accused. 76. While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 77. It is considered view that at this stage of the instant case, the Court was only required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not because at the stage of framing of the charge and / or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. 78. It requires to refer herein that the purpose of framing a charge is to provide the accused with detailed information about the allegations against him. Framing of proper charge is one of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the charge and proceeding with the trial. 85. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whenever the trial Court decides to frame charges, it is not necessary to record reasons or to do discuss evidence in detail. 86. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It was held that it is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence and a charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility about commission of the offence by the accused as against certainty. 87. It needs to refer herein that Sections 215 and 464 CrPC ensure that technicalities do not defeat justice. Both the sections lay that irregularity or error in framing a charge is not fatal unless the accused is able to show that prejudice is caused to him as result of such irregularity or omission. The object of section 238 BNSS is to prevent failure of justice on account of irregularity in framing of charge. 88. In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Court must ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicial pronouncements, it is evident that at the stage of framing charges, trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. Marshalling of facts and appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of charge is not in the domain of the court. Charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion founded upon materials before the court which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused. 93. It needs to refer herein that ingredients of offences should be seen in the material produced before the court for framing of charges and duty of court at the stage of framing of charges is to see whether the ingredients of offences are available in the material produced before the court. Contradictions in the statements of witnesses or sufficiency or truthfulness of the material placed before the court cannot be examined at the stage of framing of the charge. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the stage of framing the charge, the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material. 97. Recently, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657 has elaborately discussed the issue of framing of charge and has held at paragraph-27 which reads as under: "27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge-sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cused is required to be further tried or not because at the stage of framing of the charge and / or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. 102. In the backdrop of aforesaid case laws and judicial deduction, this Court is now proceeding to examine the fact so as to come to the conclusion, "as to whether the evidence which has been collected in course of investigation and has been brought on record, as would be available in the impugned order, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out or not?" 103. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been prosecuted on the basis of assumptions and surmises, and the officials of the Investigating Agency has totally overlooked the principle that there must be a 'reason to believe' rather than mere assumptions that the offences alleged against the petitioner have actually been committed by him and further the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not produced material which would show that the petitioner has, in any manner, dealt with "proceeds of crime". 104. Per contra, the learned counsel for ED has contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. During investigation, it was found that Sanjeev Kumar Lal resides at Booty Road, Ranchi which is a government accommodation. During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the said contact's name. Further, SDR, CAF and CDR of the aforesaid mobile nos, were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851 is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another mobile no. 8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir Alam, S/o-Ekramul Haque. Thus, it became evident that Jahangir Alam is a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the Jahangir acts as a close trusted aid of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both mobile nos. was also made and it was found that they live in very close proximity to the government accommodation and it was found during search that they were residing in the same government residence. Further, it was gathered that there is a flat in the name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal for secr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een stated that total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result of search, huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime. Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is distributed as- (a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal; (b) 1.65% to Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials. They also stated that the collection of commission for minister, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icials from contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is distributed as under: (a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials They also stated that the collection of commission for minister Alamgir Alam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons. 8.4 Further, From the statements of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and aforesaid Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD the modus operandi of allocation of Tenders and collection of commission against the tenders has surfaced which is detailed as under: (i) The modus operandi regarding collection of commission against allotment tenders starts with the floating of tenders by RWD, RDSD and JSRRDA for the construction of roads, bridges and other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RSONS EXAMINED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 50 OF PMLA, 2002. During the course of the search and investigation, statements of several persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA, the gist of the statements relevant to this investigation is as under: 10.1. Veerendra Kumar Ram: Veerendra Kumar Ram is a chief engineer in Rural Department Special Zone and also in additional charge of Rural Works Department. In his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA during custodial interrogation and in judicial custody on different dates wherein he inter alia accepted that commission was taken in lieu of allotment of tenders and that the total commission was 3.2% of tender value and that his share of commission was 0.3% of the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to 1%. The share of Minister Alamgir Alam is around 1.5% of the allocated tender amount. He further stated that the whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in the name of his family members. Further, Sanjeev Kumar Lal stated u/s 50 of PMLA that Munna Singh and his brother were not aware that the money they were collected, was the commission amount against the tenders. They did the same on his instructions. 10.4. Jahangir Alam: He is a close aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal and other seized records and documents. He further stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal instructed him to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter bearing, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note bundles, and after receiving those b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f and other engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD. Further, Munna Singh has stated in his statement recorded on u/s 50 of PMLA, that he has not received any share from the commission he used to collect. He did the collection and handing over of the cash only following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Munna Singh further stated that he showed his inability and objected against the collection of cash and he tried to know the source of funds from Sanjeev Kumar Lal, however, Sanjeev Kumar Lal never revealed him the actual source of the cash collected. Sanjeev Kumar Lal always told him that there would be no issue in aforesaid task. 10.7. Santosh Kumar alias Rinku: Statements of Santosh Kumar alias Rinku, brother of Munna Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal has collected the commission/cash from the Chief and other engineers, and handed over the same to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that he has received cash-several times from various persons. 10.8. Rajkumar Toppo: Statement of Rajkumar Toppo, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% - Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief Engineer Pramod Kumar he has collected around Rs. 4.77 Crore against total tender amount of Rs. 150 Crores. Out of which 2.295 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. 10.11. Ashok Kumar Gupta: Statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under: (a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief-Engineers Singrai Tuti and Pramod Kumar he has collected around Rs. 10.50 Crore commission from the contractors. He further stated that he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. Surendra Kumar: Statement of Surendra Kumar, Chief Engineer, RDSD was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under: (a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 15 Crore through Assistant Engineers and the same was handed over to Rajeev Kumar Singh, his known one, and further Rajeev Kumar Singh handed over the same to Munna Singh for giving it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. 10.15. Pramod Kumar: Statement of Pramod Kumar, Chief Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distributed as under: (a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that the commission was collected by the then Chief Engineer Veerendra Kumar Ram by his selected person and through him. Further, he has collected and handed over Rs. 1.5 Crore to Veerendra Kumar Ram. 10.18. Umesh Kumar: Statement of Umesh Kumar, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under portfolio of Chief Engineer Singrai Tuti. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under: (a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that during his period as superintending engineer in JSRRDA he has collected around Rs. 3.5 to 3.8 Crore commission amount from contractors through his executive/assistant Engineers o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has instructed departmental engineers to hand over the commission part of Alamgir Alam to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs. 50 crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus, the same amount of PoC was acquired by Alamgir Alam through Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs. 53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search proceedings. e) Further, it is ascertained from the statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam also acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of the department and same transaction was also assisted by Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022. f) Thus, Alamgir Alam is found to be directly indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of at least Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operties have been attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation. 3. Jahangir Alam (Accused No.-13) (a) Jahangir Alam is close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and has collected commission on behest of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. (b) Following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he has collected cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh. (c) He has played vital role in collection of cash/commission and concealment of the proceeds of crime clandestinely at his premises. (d) He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar Lal which is commission amount against tenders i.e. Proceeds of Crime and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name. He has purchased immovable properties, flat at Sir Syed Residency and plot at Pundag, Ranchi. (e) Jahangir Alam is the key person who has facilitated the movement and hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of Crime. (f) He is found to be directly indulged, actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition, possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bution of proceeds of crime. 113. Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers. It has also come on record that Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) was 1.35%. 114. Thus, from the complaint it appears that apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letter heads were found from the premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 119. Thus, on the basis of the material available in prosecution complaint the role of the present petitioner in the alleged money laundering cannot be negated. 120. So far, the issue of non-availability of money trail as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it has come on the record that a huge cash of Rs.32.20 crore was recovered and seized from the premises of Jahangir Alam an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who was personal Secretary to the Minister i.e. the present petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that several incriminating notes and pages of diaries were also found during search and seizure which was maintained by Sanjeev Kumar Lal recording the share of the minister Alamgir Alam from the total commission collected from the tenders. By way of Section 50 statement Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the personal Secretary to the Minister/petitioner, has admitted the contents of these seized pages and the fact that he was collecting commission on behalf of the applicant/minister as recorded in the "Hisab-Kitab‟ seized by ED corroborates the factum of recovery. He further decoded the code words and clearly mentioned that the applicant/minister was th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rime. Therefore, it is a considered view of this Court that since concealment of the proceeds of crime is itself an offence it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish the money trail. 124. Further, in view of above, prima facie it appears that there is direct complicity of the petitioner in collecting money through his private secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal which has come in evidence in the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act and the diary making reference of the said fact showing the complicity of the present petitioner in collecting commission in lieu of tender. 125. It has been contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner in ECIR No.-RNSZ0/16/2020 and that the predicate offences, including Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Jamshedpur P.S. Case No.-13 of 2019 and Economic Offence Wing (EOW) P.S. Case No.-22/2023, are unrelated to the petitioner. 126. In the aforesaid context, it is pertinent to note that under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, money laundering constitutes an independent offence which extends beyond individuals directly named in the predicate offence FIR or charge sheet, and encompasses any person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed offence. 129. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has involved himself in accumulating proceeds of crime and the aforesaid plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner doesn't hold water. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pavna Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023) held that the who could commit an offence under the PMLA maybe not be named in the scheduled offence. 130. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except with previous sanction of the competent authority but herein the mandate of section 197 Cr. P.C./218 BNSS has not been followed. 134. In the aforesaid context, it is necessary to observe that at this stage the concern of this Court is confined to examining the sanctity of the order rejecting the discharge application. The issue of discharge is distinct and independent. Herein, the scope of consideration is limited to whether the order of rejection of discharge application suffers from any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting interference. However, from prosecution complaint, it is evident that the acts committed by the Petitioner relating to the offences of money laundering were not carried out in discharge of his official duties as a public servant, and therefore it is settled position of law that no sanction would be necessary if the act of the public servant has not been done in his official capacity. 135. Further, the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is the sole basis of the present petition, in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Bib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid to be in discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao, (1993) 3 SCC 339. 140. In the case of Inspector of Police v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam, (2015) 13 SCC 87 in Para 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "the alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these crucial aspects. The learned Magistrate ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: "31. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in persuading us about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the Act. In the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Sessions Court and by the High Court. We have independently examined the materials relied upon by the prosecution and also noted the inexplicable silence or reluctance of the appellant in disclosing the source from where such huge value of demonetised currency and also new currency has been acquired by him. The prosecution is relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused already recorded, out of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High Court. These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The same makes out a formidable case about the involvement of the appellant in commission of a serious offence of money laundering. It is, therefore, not possible for us to record satisfaction that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse of inquiry are deemed to be the judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Ch. XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Sections 160/161 CrPC, the provisions of Section would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof." 147. In light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it is evident that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA hold evidentiary value and are admissible in legal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing the legal sanctity of such statements, observed that they constitute valid material upon which reliance can be placed to sustain allegations under the PMLA. 148. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reaffirmed the admissibility of Section 50 of the PMLA distinguishing them from statements recorded under the CrPC. The Court underscored that such statements, being recorded during an inquiry rather than an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act." 150. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible in evidence and can be relied upon to establish culpability in money laundering cases. Further in the instant case, the supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2024, filed against the petitioner and twelve co-accused persons, is supported by substantial evidence gathered during the investigation and is not solely reliant on the statements of the petitioner and his accomplices. 151. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation statement so recorded of the accused persons as also of the statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD and the witnesses were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, who all are consistent in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been discovered in course of investigation, is of the prima facie view that what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he is nowhere related with proceeds of crime is not fit to be acceptable because as would appear from the preceding paragraphs, money which has been alleged to be obtained by the petitioner/accused has been routed through his Private Secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal. If there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has been received by misusing the position of the petitioner that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds of crime was projected as untainted money subsequently. 156. This is in view of the amendment that was made to Section 3 of PMLA through Act 23 of 2019. This position was also made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement. V. Padmanabhan Kishore reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1490. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under: "12. The definition of "proceeds of crime" in the PML Act, inter alia, means any property derived or obtained by any person as a result of criminal ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndering, by producing evidence which is within personal knowledge of the accused. 159. The statements that were recorded from the witnesses during the investigation have been dealt with in prosecution complaint and many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded from the witnesses and which has been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie indicates the offence of money laundering against the present petitioner. 160. Further, the argument that there was no criminal intent (mens rea) is not tenable because at this stage criminal intent (mens rea) cannot be appreciated and the same can be appreciated in the full blown trial by leading the evidences by the parties. 161. Thus, upon perusal of the case record, it is evident that cognizance of the offence has already been taken for commission of the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 162. The prosecution complaint discloses that the Petitioner, being a Cabinet Minister of the State of Jharkhand, was allegedly indulged in collection of commission/bribes through his associates for allotment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of crime, thereby ensuring that such illicit funds do not undermine the financial system. Money laundering has far-reaching consequences, not only in terms of individual acts of corruption but also in causing significant loss to the public exchequer. The laundering of proceeds of crime results in a significant loss to the economy, disrupts lawful financial transactions, and erodes public trust in the system. The alleged offences in the present case have a direct bearing on the economy, as illicit financial transactions deprive the state of legitimate revenue, distort market integrity, and contribute to economic instability. Such acts, when committed by persons in positions of power, erode public confidence in governance and lead to systemic vulnerabilities within financial institutions. 31. The illegal diversion and layering of funds have a cascading effect, leading to revenue losses for the state and depriving legitimate sectors of investment and financial resources. It is settled law that in cases involving serious economic offences, judicial intervention at a preliminary stage must be exercised with caution, and proceedings should not be quashed in the absence of compe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. 167. Thus, it is evident that the revisional power can only be exercised to correct patent error of law or procedure which would occasion unfairness, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be compared with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. 168. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239CrPC. At the stage of Section 239CrPC, the court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless." 170. It requires to refer herein that the ambit and scope of exercise of power of discharge, are fairly well settled which has been elaborately discussed in the preceding paragraphs and as per settled proposition of law, neither comprehensive assessment of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defence need to be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage. The only deliberation at the stage of discharge is "as to whether prima facie case was made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not". 171. Further, it is well settle....