TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade in the instant petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under: 2.1 The petitioner joined the Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand, as a Forest Guard in the year 1978 and eventually retired as a Forest Range Officer on 31.12.2017. During his tenure, he predominantly served in the afforestation sections at Hazaribagh, Giridih, and Koderma, holding significant administrative and financial authority over forestry operations and public funds. It has been alleged that during this period the Petitioner systematically misused his official position to amass enormous wealth that was completely disproportionate to his known and lawful sources of income. 2.2 Consequently, an FIR bearing No. 49/2016 dated 14.06.2016 was registered against the Petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2.3 It has been alleged that upon thorough investigation of the aforementioned FIR, the ACB, Ranchi, conclusively found that the Petitioner had accumulated massive disproportionate assets. Accordingly, the ACB filed Charge Sheet No. 75/2016 dated 10.11.2016 against the Petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It has further been alleged that additionally, a massive cash hoard of Rs 31,50,040/- was recovered and seized by the ACB in physical currency during a search of the Petitioner's private residential premises on 25.07.2016, alongside other movable properties including vehicles and household goods valued at Rs. 20,95,145/-. 2.9 It has been stated that the Petitioner did not merely acquire these Proceeds of Crime but actively and continuously engaged in the offense of money laundering by layering and integrating this tainted wealth into the formal financial system. To mask the illicit origin of the funds generated from his corrupt practices, the Petitioner systematically routed huge cash deposits through the bank accounts of his family members, particularly his wife, Smt. Reena Devi, who had no independent, verifiable source of income. 2.10 The Petitioner and his wife subsequently attempted to project this tainted money as untainted by fabricating explanations of agricultural income, dairy farming, and rental receipts-claims which utterly failed to withstand forensic financial scrutiny and lacked any credible documentary, revenue, or banking evidence. By structuring these transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PMLA, namely: existence of proceeds of crime; and involvement of the petitioner in any process or activity connected with such proceeds. In absence of these foundational ingredients, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. Arguments advanced on behalf of the Opposite Party/Respondent: 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-ED has submitted that the Petitioner has fundamentally failed to appreciate the heavy statutory onus placed upon him by Section 24 of the PMLA, 2002. In the present case, the prosecution has established a formidable foundational fact: against a known net salary of Rs. 49 Lakhs, the Petitioner's family amassed assets worth over Rs. 4.04 Crores-a staggering 608% disproportion. Once this prima facie generation and routing of "Proceeds of Crime" is established, a mandatory statutory presumption arises under Section 24 wherein the Court shall presume that such wealth is involved in money laundering, thereby shifting the bur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) that whatever has been argued by Mr. Das, based upon the material collected as inserted in the ECIR, is nothing but mere presumption which has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as would be evident from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Analysis: 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and has also gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the various paragraphs of the prosecution complaint. 13. It is evident from record that the petitioner has been made accused in connection with ECIR Case no.09 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/01/2017 dated 25.08.2017 registered by the Respondent (ED) under provisions of the PMLA. The said ECIR/RNSZO/01/2017 dated 25.08.2017 was registered pursuant to lodging of FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016 dated 14.06.2016. 14. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR bearing No. 49/16 dated 14.06.2016 was registered under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by ACB, Ranchi. Thereafter, ACB, Ranchi filed a charge sheet vide no.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their name, thus, projecting tainted money as untainted. 17. Upon thorough investigation of the aforementioned FIR, the ACB, Ranchi, conclusively found that the Petitioner had accumulated massive disproportionate assets. Accordingly, the ACB filed Charge Sheet No. 75/2016 dated 10.11.2016 against the Petitioner before the Ld. Special Judge, ACB. The said Charge Sheet has already established a prima facie case of gross corruption and illegal accumulation of wealth against the Petitioner. 18. The Directorate of Enforcement duly recorded an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/01/2017 dated 25.08.2017, and a comprehensive statutory investigation under the PMLA was initiated to trace the laundering of these illicitly acquired assets. 19. The detailed investigation conducted under the PMLA reveals that during the Petitioner's entire service period (spanning from March 1978 to June 2016), the total gross salary received by him was a mere Rs. 57,12,468/-(with the net salary in hand being approximately Rs. 49,05,652/-). However, against this legitimate income, the total value of the properties identified in the name of the Petitioner and his family members stood at a colossal Rs. 4,04,64,4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancestral property inherited by the wife of the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner has rental income as well as from dairy business. She herself uses to file her ITR and everything has been reflected in the ITR. It has been further submitted that when the calculation of the petitioner's income, expenditure, assets are calculated then the income comes to be more than the asset and expenditure and as such no Disproportionate asset case is made out against the petitioner U/s 13(1)(e) r/w section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. 23. On the other hand, the ED has vehemently opposed the prayer of discharge made on behalf of accused/petitioner Digamber Singh before the special Judge by taking the ground that present petitioner joined as a Forest Guard in 1978 and retired on 31.12.2017 as a Forest Range Officer, predominantly serving in the afforestation section at Hazaribag, Giridih and Kodarma. He thus held significant authority over forestry operations, which he misused to accumulate assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income. During his service tenure, against a total gross salary of approximately Rs. 57,12,448/ (net around Rs. 49,05,652/-) earned over nearly four deca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] [or abroad]; [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include 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;]" 32. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of 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, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. 33. In the explanation it has been referred that for removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include 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. The aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime 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.]" 39. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ult of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence" will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime. 45. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. 46. Now, after having discussed the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of various provisions of the Act, 2002, this Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recording of evidence on the basis of the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the accused after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard. But the stage of discharge under section 245 Cr.P.C., on the other hand, is reached only after the evidence referred in section 244 is taken. Despite the difference in the language of the provisions of sections 227, 239 and 245 Cr.P.C. and whichever provision may be applicable, the Court is required to see, at the time of framing of charge, that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under sections 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C. is to assist the Court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. 51. The issue of discharge was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu, by Inspector of Police in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, wherein at paragraphs no. 29, 32.4, 33 and 34 the Hon'ble Apex Court has been observed as under:- "29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpose of disposal of these appeals and shall have no bearing on the trial. The surviving respondents are directed to appear before the respective courts on 3-2-2014. The Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage of charge in accordance with law and make endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously. 34. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the order of discharge with the aforesaid observations. 52. It is further settled position of law that defence on merit is not to be considered at the time of stage of framing of charge and that cannot be a ground of discharge. A reference may be made to the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191. For ready reference Paragraph no. 11 of the said judgment are quoted below:- "11. While considering the legality of the impugned judgment [Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3468] and order passed by the High Court, the law on the subject and few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to. 11.1. In P. Vijayan [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721], adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) '29. ... 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.'" 53. Further it is pertinent to mention here that power to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section itself.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code. 30. We have already noticed that the legislature in its wisdom has used the expression "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence". This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 referred to the meaning of the word "presume" while relying upon Black's Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence"; "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming". In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, the incriminating material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lal Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110] this Court, referring to several previous decisions held that : (SCC p. 342, para 7) "7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused." 57. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. The principles which emerged therefrom have been taken note of in para 21 as under: "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e quoted as under: "17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles: 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial". 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses to produce at the stage? 31. In view of the decisions of this Court that the accused can only rely on the materials which are produced by the prosecution, it must be understood that the grave suspicion, if it is established on the materials, should be explained away only in terms of the materials made available by the prosecution. No doubt, the accused may appeal to the broad probabilities to the case to persuade the court to discharge him." 59. It has been further held in the case of Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148, that mini trial is not expected by the trial court for the purpose of marshalling the evidence on record at the time of framing of charge. It has been held at paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment as under:- "18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an offence, the trial Court shall frame the charge. However, the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. The accused has no right to produce any document at that stage. The application for discharge has to be considered on the premise that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true. 62. Thus, at the time of considering an application for discharge, the Court is required to consider to the limited extent to find out whether there is prima facie evidence against the accused to believe that he has committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; if prima facie evidence is available against the accused, then there cannot be an order of discharge. 63. At the stage of discharge, the Judge has merely to sift and weigh the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the prosecution or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame the charge against him and after tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the court cannot be examined at the stage of consideration of discharge. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence. Court has to consider material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense and not for the purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion. "Presume‟ means if on the basis of materials on record, court can come to the conclusion that commission of the offense is a probable consequence, then a case for framing of charge exists. 69. Thus, it is well settled that at the time of considering discharge meticulous examination of evidence is not required, however the evidence can be sifted or weighed at least for the purpose of recording a satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out to proceed in the case. Further the trial Court is not required to discuss the evidence for the purpose of conducting a trial but the discussion of the materials on record is required to reflect the application of judicial mind for finding that a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner. 70. It is settled connotation of law that at the stage of discharge the probable defence of the accused is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here 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. 74. 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. 75. 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 considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. 76. Further, while considering the question of discharge, the Court has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose for finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. In exercising the power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aming of charge exists. 81. 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 brought on record, as would be available in the impugned order, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out or not? 82. It is evident from the complaint that the investigation conducted by the respondent-ED reveals that Illicit cash aggregating to Rs. 90,84,988/- was systematically 'placed' into the bank accounts of the Petitioner and his wife Smt. Reena Devi across multiple banks (ICICI Bank, IDBI Bank, Union Bank of India, IndusInd Bank, State Bank of India) during the Financial Years 2008-09 to 2016-17. Insurance policies worth Rs. 70,22,260/ - were purchased in the names of the Petitioner, his wife, and his daughter Pallavi Singh across ICICI Prudential Life Insurance (Rs. 51,40,166/-), Ageas Federal Life Insurance (Rs. 14,21,740/-), and LIC (Rs. 4,60,354/-). An amount of Rs. 4,73,000/- was invested in 27 accounts at Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Besides, 36 term deposit accounts and 22 savings accounts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Devi failed to submit any rent agreements pertaining to the check period (March 1978 to June 2016). The rent agreements submitted via her submission dated 29.12.2020 pertain to the years 2017 and 2018 after the check period and are therefore wholly irrelevant. 86. It has come that there are contradictions in the statements of the Petitioner and his wife. Reena Devi stated on 15.02.2019 that she did not know the details of her bank accounts, invested savings only in banks, had only one insurance policy (details of which she did not know), and did not know if she had invested in Post Office. She further stated that she made no assistance or contribution to the investments in her children's accounts or insurance policies. However, the Petitioner, in his statements dated 09.08.2023 and 10.08 2023, claimed that all investments in Reena Devi's and children's accounts were made by Reena Devi from her own income. By claiming his wife had independent income while she admitted to being a housewife with no contribution to family savings, the Petitioner has failed to discharge the reverse burden under Section 24 of the PMLA. 87. The Petitioner's reliance on the Vigilance Final Form exone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MENT/POSSESSION/ ACQUISITION OR USE IN PROJECTING OR CLAIMING PROCEEDS OF CRIME AS UNTAINTED PROPERTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 3 OF PMLA:- a) Accused was a Government employee who worked at Hazaribagh East Division, Forest Department under Govt. of Jharkhand. He acquired huge movable and immovable assets by misusing his official position. He was posted in the afforestation section of the Forest Department during most of the time period of his service tenure. b) He acquired the ill-gotten fund, or the proceeds of crime and arranged routing through the bank accounts of his family members and further utilized those funds in acquiring immovable and movable properties in their name, thus, projecting untainted money as tainted. Digamber Singh and his family are also found to be living a luxurious lifestyle which is not possible with the salary income of Digamber Singh who was the only earning member of his family. During the investigation, the claim of Digamber Singh regarding the agricultural income and money received against the agreement made for selling ancestral land was found misleading. c) Therefore, Accused No. 1 i.e. Digamber Singh has a disproportionate as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cestral land was misleading. The accused and his family were found to be living a lifestyle disproportionate to his known sources of income, he being the sole earning member. The disproportionate assets have been quantified at Rs.3,47,51,936/-, constituting proceeds of crime. These proceeds were deposited in multiple accounts, converted into term deposits, and layered through various banking channels before being invested in movable and immovable properties. Without any cogent evidence, the cash amount of Rs.31,50,040/- seized by the ACB was claimed to be government money. 92. Thus, from the aforesaid prima facie it appears that the accused person Digamber Singh has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. 93. The charge sheet bearing No. 75/2016 records disproportionate assets of Rs.3,47,51,936/- in the name of the accused and his family members. Against a legitimate salary income of Rs.57,12,468/-, the accused was found in possession of movable assets worth Rs.2,71,47,407/-, including bank balances, insurance policies, and investments in Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Thus, an amount of Rs.2,14,34,939/- represents proceeds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prosecute the wife for corruption does not legitimize the tainted funds parked in her accounts, nor does it absolve the Petitioner. 98. The Petitioner has impressed upon this Court to evaluate his self-serving defense documents-such as belated applications by laborers, unverified income claims regarding his wife's dairy and agricultural activities, and closure reports in distinct, subsequent, and entirely unrelated FIRs which have no bearing on the Scheduled Offence. The truthfulness, sufficiency, and acceptability of the Petitioner's manufactured defense can only be tested during a full trial through cross-examination, not at the threshold stage of framing charges. 99. Further, the Petitioner has failed to explain the heavy statutory onus placed upon him by Section 24 of the PMLA, 2002. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has established a difficult foundational fact: against a known net salary of Rs. 49 Lakhs, the Petitioner's family amassed assets worth over Rs. 4.04 Crores-a staggering 608% disproportion. Once this prima facie generation and routing of "Proceeds of Crime" is established, a mandatory statutory presumption arises under Section 24 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate of Enforcement and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 560 has observed that as established in multiple judicial pronouncements, cases involving economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth the complete chain of events, financial transactions, and culpability of the accused, therefore the material submitted by the respondent, coupled with the broad legislative framework of the PMLA, indicates the necessity of allowing the trial to proceed and not discharging the appellant at the nascent stage of charge framing and discharging the appellant at this stage would be premature and contrary to the principles governing the prosecution in money laundering cases, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: "30. The PMLA was enacted with the primary objective of preventing money laundering and confiscating the proceeds 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 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y objectives, the continuing nature of the offence, and the significant financial implications arising from the alleged acts. Discharging the appellant at this stage would be premature and contrary to the principles governing the prosecution in money laundering cases." 105. Thus, from perusal of case record, statements of witnesses, materials available on record and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that prima-facie sufficient materials are available on record against the present petitioner. 106. Accordingly, both the issues are answered herein. 107. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2001) 9 SCC 631 has observed that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the wife of the public servant i.e. Respondent 2 herein. 82. By accepting the entire evidence put forward by the accused persons applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, the case put up by the prosecution cannot be termed as "groundless". As observed by this Court in C.S.D. Swami [C.S.D. Swami v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7] that the accused might have made statements before the investigating officer as to his alleged sources of income, but the same, strictly, would not be evidence in the case. 83. Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" 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 satisfactor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is immediate family. There is also material to suggest that the aforesaid assets were layered through multiple bank accounts and insurance policies, projected as untainted property. 114. Under such facts and circumstances, the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi has observed that the court does not find any merit in the prayer of the accused/petitioner to discharge him in EICR Case No.09/2023 arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/01/2017. Accordingly, the prayer of discharge as made through petition dated 18.06.2025 stood rejected. 115. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Ld. Special Judge has duly considered the rival submissions, examined the documents and statements placed on record, and thereafter passed a reasoned order. The discharge application filed by the Petitioner was rejected only after satisfaction that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against him. 116. Hence, on the basis of discussion made above and taking into consideration the settled position of law discussed and referred hereinabove and further taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate....