TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Section 45(1) of PMLA. 2. In nutshell case of applicant is that FIR No. 22/2024 has been registered by Anti-Narcotic Cell (ANC), Police Station, North Goa under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 against one Madhupan Suresh Sasikala, upon seizure of narcotic substances valued at approximately Rs. 1,01,65,200/-, which is scheduled offence under paragraph II of Part A of Schedule to PMLA. Upon investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by Goa Police. Eventually, on 13.02.2025 ECIR No. ECIR/PJZO/02/2025 has been recorded by applicant-Directorate of Enforcement. On search under Section 17 of PMLA at premises, Madhupan's statement is recorded admitting drug trade, eventually, he has been arrested under Section 19 of PMLA. In his statement under Section 15 of PMLA, he disclosed role of respondent. Eventually, PMLA Case No.4/2026 has been filed before Special Court against seven accused namely Madhupan, Uttam Chand, Anamcharam Pradhan, Prayag Palyekar @ Notco, Gurudas @ Saish Nagvekar, Ayesha Kara and Saiyesh Agarwadekar, quantifying total proceeds of crime at Rs.3.96 crores as per money-trail flow chart. 3. The respondent was summoned under Section 50(2)(iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt under Section 50 of PMLA about his role in facilitating laundering proceeds of crime generated from narcotic trafficking. 5. It is accordingly submitted that although respondent received an aggregate of Rs. 12.25 lakhs from multiple nodes of laundering network, he was common cross border conversion conduit servicing syndicate and not an isolated accommodation party. The money laundering liability in a syndicate is joint. The entire laundered amount of Rs.3.96 crores which cannot be seen in piecemeal quantum attributed to an individual role. The Special Court erroneously observed that Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA would operate in present case on the basis of amount received by respondent. In support of his submissions he relies upon observations of Supreme Court in case of Saumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (6) SCC 401., Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (13) SCC 788., Babulal Verma and Another Vs. Enforcement Directorate and Another 2021 SCC OnLine Bom. 392., Ranjitsingh Bramhajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294. 6. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] it as untainted 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.]" 9. Section 23 provides for presumption in inter-connected transactions, which reads thus: "Where money-laundering involves two or more interc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aunder proceeds of crimes. Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA confers discretion on Court to grant bail where accused falls within conditions of proviso, however, that does not mean that looking to value of transaction of money laundering in every case, accused shall be released on bail. At this stage, reference can be given to observations of Supreme Court in case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra), particularly paragraph no. 23, which reads thus: "23. The use of the expression "may be" in the first proviso to Section 45 clearly indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the court considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as mandatory or obligatory on the part of the court to release them. Similar benevolent provision for granting bail to the category of persons below the age of sixteen years, women, sick or infirm has been made in Section 437 CrPC and many other special enactments also, however by no stretch of imagination could such provision be construed as obligatory or mandatory in nature, otherwise all serious offences under such special Acts would be com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecial Court applied proviso to Section 45(A) of PMLA in benefit of respondent. 15. The close look to definition of Section 3 would show that any person who directly or indirectly attends to indulge or knowingly assists any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment or use and projecting or claiming it as untained property can be said to be guilty of offence of money laundering. The explanation further clarifies the process or activities connected with proceeds of crime. Further, Section 23 provides for presumption in interconnected transactions that those transaction forms part of money laundering offence. 16. In light of aforesaid legal position, prima facie in facts of present case, this Court finds that there is sufficient material to presume that respondent is involved in offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the Act. However, question is whether respondent could have been enlarged on bail, particularly without applying twin test prescribed under Section 45. Proviso to Section 45 has been introduced vide amendment w.e.f. 19.04.2018 after judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nikesh Tarchand Shah Vs. Union of India....