TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of the PMLA. It is contended that regular banking transactions have been labelled as suspicious in the absence of any cogent material establishing generation, concealment, or projection of 'proceeds of crime' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 of the PMLA. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a modest background and was engaged in a small-scale restaurant business under the name 'Dubai Darbar' besides carrying out charitable and religious activities through 'Al-Furkan Educational Trust.' It is further contended that the deposits reflected in the accounts of the petitioner pertain to income generated from restaurant business, bona fide donations and routine financial dealings, which have been deliberately misconstrued by the respondent and labelled as proceeds of crime to implicate the accused petitioner in the instant case. 2.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's wife had cancer and substantial public contributions were collected towards her treatment. It is further submitted that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner and there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e alleged occurrence and the respondent has failed to demonstrate as to how the alleged incident generated any proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA and mere addition of Section 27 of the Arms Act would not ipso facto attract the provisions of the PMLA. 2.5. It is further contended that the respondent-DOE has treated ordinary banking transactions spread over nearly ten years as proceeds of crime without establishing any nexus with the alleged scheduled offence of the year 2022. The deposits relied upon by the respondent pertain to periods much before the filing of FIR No. 13/2022 and therefore, cannot be connected with the alleged scheduled offence. 2.6. It is further submitted that the respondent has failed to identify any specific tainted property allegedly derived from criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence and has merely aggregated credits and debits of various accounts to inflate the alleged amount involved in money laundering artificially and even the prosecution complaint records that no proceeds of crime are presently available for attachment and no undisclosed property or disproportionate asset attributable to the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, his family members and 'Al-Furkan Educational Trust.' 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the ECIR is founded upon FIR Nos. 44/2017, 404/2019, 13/2022 and 299/2025, which collectively disclose continuous criminal activity of the petitioner. It is argued that FIR No. 13/2022 involving offences under Section 307, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, constitutes a scheduled offence under the PMLA and thereby forms the basis for registration of the ECIR. 3.2. It is further contended that the investigation revealed huge cash deposits followed by immediate withdrawals through self-cheques, ATM withdrawals and counter transactions, thereby indicating layering and concealment of proceeds of crime. It is also submitted that despite such substantial financial transactions being made, the petitioner has failed to disclose any lawful or commensurate source of income corresponding to the magnitude of transactions reflected in the accounts. It is further submitted that the bank accounts reflected negligible closing balances and repeated depletion of funds, thereby indicating use of such accounts as transit accounts for routing proceeds of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prasad, 2025 INSC 210. E. Directorate of Enforcement vs. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 619. F. S. Jayalakshmi v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4568 G. Y. Balaji vs. Karthik Desari & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SCC 645. H. Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 349. I. M. Sivasankar vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 2228. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is to be noted that FIR No. 13/2022 registered at Police Station Kotegate, Bikaner, includes offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which are scheduled offences under the PMLA. The material placed on record reveals that, during the investigation of the aforesaid matter, a Desi katta was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the other co-accused and recovery of empty cartridges was also affected at the crime scene. Furthermore, the statements of the co-accused persons in the aforesaid FIR, recorded during the investigation of this case under Section 50 of the PMLA, specifically state that the petitioner supplied the firearms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial available on record. 5.3. The second limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner pertains to whether the petitioner was involved in generation and utilization of proceeds of crime arising out of the scheduled offences. In this regard, the investigation conducted by the respondent-DOE prima facie reveals substantial monetary transactions involving cash deposits of approximately Rs. 52.45 Lakhs followed by immediate withdrawals amounting to approximately Rs.105.84 Lakhs through self-cheques, ATM withdrawals and counter transactions undertaken through various accounts maintained and controlled by the petitioner, his family members and 'Al-Furkan Educational Trust'. 5.4. The investigation conducted by the respondent-DOE further indicates that the said accounts prima facie suggest use of accounts only for routing and layering of funds. The material collected during the investigation further indicates that such transactions were undertaken even prior to the incident forming the subject matter of FIR No. 13/2022 and were utilised for unlawful activities connected with the scheduled offence. 5.5. This Court further noticed that the respondent-DOE has specifical....