TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ory (ICF), Perambur, Chennai, had indulged in corrupt activities in connivance with the Sixth Accused (A6) in matters relating to the award and execution of tenders. A6 is the Director of the Seventh Accused (A7), a Company, who were the beneficiaries. A6 was also used as a conduit for the collection of bribes on behalf of A1. A1 retired from service on 31.03.2021. A sum of Rs. 5.89 crores was available with A6, which was to be handed over to A1 at New Delhi. The said amounts were handed over to the Second Accused (A2), the brother, on the instructions of A1, through A4 and A5. 2.2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered the predicate case in FIR No.RC AC-1 2021 A0005, dated 05.07.2021 against the accused, including the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, final report was filed and the case is pending as C.C.No.36 of 2021 on the file of the District and Sessions Court for CBI Cases (Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act) at the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex in New Delhi. 2.3. The respondent/Enforcement Directorate, based on the predicate case involvin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to sift the evidence and examine whether there were any prima facie materials warranting further proceedings against the accused, but the Trial Court failed to discharge its duty and merely proceeded on the basis of the prosecution case. The dismissal of the discharge petition, therefore, was not in consonance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) [(2010) 9 SCC 368], and Prem Prakash vs. Union of India (UOI) [(2024) 9 SCC 787]. 7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the petitioners assisted A6 in transferring a sum of Rs. 1 crore, being proceeds of crime, to A1 and thereby committed an offence under Section 3 of the PML Act. It was submitted that the petitioners have not been implicated merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. There are ample materials in the form of bank account statements showing that A7 transferred a sum of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attached, which were subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 44 of the PML Act before the Special Court, which took cognizance of the complaint in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2024. Charges were framed against the accused, including the petitioners, for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act, 2002. 13. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that they assisted A6 in transferring a sum of Rs. 1 crore to A1 through A2, who is the brother of A1. The said amount formed part of a larger sum of Rs. 5.89 crore allegedly available with A6, which constituted the proceeds of crime belonging to the first accused. 14. The specific role attributed to the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence has been set out in the complaint, which reads as under: Specific Roles of Accused S.No. Name of the Accused Specific Role in the case 3. Shri Khetmai J Jain * He is partner in M/s Salem Steel Trading Company and had received part proceeds of crime (PoC) into the bank account of his partnership firm from a company (i.e. M/s Universal Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ading Co. for the Smt Hamsa Venugopalan's company M/s Universal Engineers Chennai Pvt. Ltd. as supplier of raw material; that he was having good relations with her being doing regular business. ii. that during June 2021, Smt Hamsa Venugopalan requested him to arrange some loan amount in New Delhi and assured to return in few months; that she told him to give Rs. 50 lakhs to Shri Om Prakash in New Delhi and he was under impression that the loan was sought by her only; that since, he was having good business relations with her, he arranged the said loan; that the amount was handed over to Shri Om Prakash on 19.06.2021. iii. that after few days, Smt. Hamsa Venugopalan again requested him for another Rs. 50 lakhs and accordingly, Shri Om Prakash got the said amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs in Delhi on 05.07.2021. that later, on 06.07.2021, he was arrested and then taken to New Delhi. iv. that during the enquiries of CBI at New Delhi, he came to knew that Shri Om Prakash was intercepted by CBI officials, while delivering the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to one Shri Sanjay Kathpal. v. that he was not even aware that amount was arranged for Shri Sanjay Kathpal or Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd requested them to arrange an urgent cash amount of Rs. 50 lakhs at New Delhi. Accordingly, the amount was arranged by them and, based on the contact details of A5 furnished by the first petitioner on 19.06.2021, Mr.Sohanlal Gupta handed over a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the fifth accused at Delhi. 21. Further, the statement of Mr.Naresh Kumar provides details regarding the second installment of Rs. 50 lakhs, which was similarly arranged and handed over to A5 in New Delhi. The statements of these three persons, along with the other statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, including that of A5, set out in detail the role played by the petitioners in facilitating A6 in transferring and handing over a sum of Rs. 1 crore in cash in Delhi to the A5. 22. The relevant bank account statements, showing that a sum of Rs. 1 crore was transferred from the account of A7 during the relevant period, are also available on record. In his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, the 1st petitioner also admitted that, at the request of A6, he arranged a loan of Rs. 1 crore in cash and caused the same to be made available and handed over in New Delhi. 23. The aforesaid ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving bearing on the contentions urged for the parties, provides: '227. Discharge.-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 no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.' 12. Section 228 requires the Judge to frame charge if he considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. The interaction of these two sections has already been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533], Untwalia, J., while explaining the scope of the said sections observed : [SCC pp. 41-42, para 4 : SCC (Cri) pp. 535-36 : SCR p. 259] '4. ... Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced 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 appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.' 14. These two decisions do not lay down different principles. Prafulla Kumar case [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] has only reiterated what has been stated in Ramesh Singh case [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533] . In fact, Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that 'the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused'. The "ground" in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the tria....