TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of the fact that the Petitioner has already been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 10.02.2026 passed in connection with the predicate offence arising out of Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 07/19 dated 20.01.2019 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Pending 1957, by the Court of Shri Amit Bansal, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godda. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of Declaration declaring that in view of the acquittal of the Petitioner in the aforesaid predicate offence, on the basis of which ECIR/RNZO/08/2023 has been registered by the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement for the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, no further investigation as defined under Section 2(na) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be continued against the present Petitioner. c. For grant of an interim order staying all further proceedings in connection with ECIR/RNZO/08/2023 during the pendency of the present writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of scheduled offences under Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement recorded an Enforcement Case Information Report bearing ECIR No. ECIR/RNZO/08/2023 dated 13.02.2023 and consequently initiated investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the persons named therein, including the present Petitioner. 7. In furtherance of the aforesaid proceedings, the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as "ED Officials" for the sake of brevity) for the first time visited the premises of the Petitioner situated at Village-Sejakora, P.S.-Jama, District-Dumka, Jharkhand-834002 on 21.11.2025 for the purpose of conducting search and seizure proceedings. 8. During the course of the aforesaid search and seizure operation, a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- in cash, along with 134 original property deeds and certain loose sheets, were seized by the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid search and seizure, the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement filed an application under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Prevention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Court of Shri Amit Bansal, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godda holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and the essential ingredients of the offences were not proved in accordance with law. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid judgment of acquittal has attained finality and has not been stayed, reversed or set aside by any superior court of competent jurisdiction. 15. The Petitioner has also filed an Affidavit dated 19.02.2026 before the Adjudicating Authority in Original Application No. 381 of 2025, placing on record the fact that the Petitioner, after undergoing a detailed and contested trial, has been acquitted in the predicate offence. 16. Pursuant to his acquittal in the predicate offence, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation along with a copy of the judgment and order dated 10.02.2026 before the office of the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, bringing to its notice the factum of his acquittal, but no order was passed thereupon, hence, the present writ petition. Argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner: 17. Learned senior counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. 22. Referring to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yash Tuteja v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online SC 1586 submission has been made that the law has been reiterated therein that that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be sustained in the absence of a subsisting scheduled offence or where the accused stands exonerated in the predicate offence. The Court has emphasized that the offence of money laundering is not a standalone offence divorced from the scheduled offence and that the existence of "proceeds of crime" derived from criminal activity relating to such scheduled offence is the foundational requirement for invoking the provisions of the PMLA. Accordingly, once the accused has been acquitted in the predicate offence, the continuation of proceedings under the PMLA would be legally unsustainable and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act. 23. It has been submitted that various High Courts have also consistently held that once a competent court of law records a finding of acquittal or exoneration in the predicate offence, the proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the existence of "proceeds of crime" arising from a scheduled offence, the continuation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the absence of any subsisting scheduled offence is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the Act. 29. It has been submitted that in such circumstances, permitting the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement to continue investigation or coercive proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to allowing a criminal prosecution to survive despite the collapse of its very foundation in law. The impugned ECIR and the proceedings arising therefrom, therefore, deserve to be quashed. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate: 30. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned senior counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has seriously opposed the said submission/ground both based upon the fact and the law as referred hereinabove, on the following grounds. 31. Raising the issue of maintainability, submission has been made that it is a well-settled belief of jurisprudence that the PMLA, 2002 is a complete, self-contained code that provides a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicatory proceedings under the PMLA, 2002. The determination of whether the seized physical cash of Rs. 85 Lakhs genuinely represents the "working capital" of a proprietorship firm, or whether the 134 coordinated gift deeds/lease agreements/Sale Deeds constitute a methodology for the integration of illicit wealth, are deeply intensive questions of fact. Such complex factual determinations, which require the rigorous sifting of financial ledgers, bank statements, and the evidentiary evaluation of documents, fall exclusively within the specialized domain of the learned Adjudicating Authority. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be converted into a parallel fact-finding inquiry to prematurely declare the seized assets as "untainted". Therefore, submission has been made that allowing the Writ Petition to proceed would not only violate the cardinal principles of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies but would also render the entire adjudicatory machinery established by the Parliament under the PMLA, 2002 completely otiose and redundant. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to use the extraordinary writ jurisdiction as an instrument to derail a lawful, ongoin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding a single intercepted truck. The learned Magistrate had absolutely no occasion to examine, let alone positively adjudicate upon, the massive cash recovery of Rs. 85 Lakhs, the 134 original property deeds, or the forensic trail of Rupees eight point nine four crores deposited in the Petitioner's bank accounts. Therefore, it has nowhere been established in a court of law that these highly incriminating assets were rightfully owned and possessed by the Petitioner through legitimate means. In the total absence of such an adjudication by the trial court regarding the seized wealth, the Petitioner cannot use a localized, non-final acquittal as a blanket shield to demand the release of heavily documented proceeds of crime, which are currently subject to independent statutory adjudication before the learned Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi. 43. So far factual aspect involved in the present case is concerned, it is a well-settled proposition of law that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 is an independent and standalone offence concerning the process and activity connected with the proceeds of crime. The trial before the Judicial Magistrate First....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y held that an ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under the general criminal law. The ECIR is strictly an internal, administrative document created by ED for its own departmental reference, tracking a record-keeping, which cannot be the subject matter of quashing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 47. Submission has been made that in the fact situation, entertaining a writ petition to quash an internal departmental record would not only directly contravene the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but would also severely paralyze the statutory mandate of the investigating agency to unearth the intricate layers of this organized economic offence. 48. Therefore, submission has been made that the writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone. Analysis 49. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties while analyzing, evaluating and appreciating the respective contentions. 50. The some of the relevant provisions of the 2002 Act are reproduced as under for better comprehension and context. 51. Section 3 of the PMLA defines the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country: Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in ^31[first proviso], any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.] 32[Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of one hundred and eighty days, the period during which the proceedings under this section is stayed by the High Court, shall be excluded and a further period not exceeding thirty days from the date of order of vacation of such stay order shall be counted.] (2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under sub-section (1), forw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch; (d) place marks of identification on such record or 71[property, if required or] make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (e) make a note or an inventory of such record or property; (f) examine on oath any person, who is found to be in possession or control of any record or property, in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation under this Act: ^72[* * *] ^73[(1-A) Where it is not practicable to seize such record or property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1), may make an order to freeze such property whereupon the property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned: Provided that if, at any time before its confiscation under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 8 or Section 58-B or sub-section (2-A) of Section 60, it becomes practical to seize a frozen property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1) may seize such property.] (2) The authority, who has been authorised under sub-section (1) shall, immediately a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period as may be prescribed. (3) On the expiry of the period specified in sub-section (1), the property shall be returned to the person from whom such property was seized or whose property was ordered to be frozen unless the Adjudicating Authority permits retention or continuation of freezing of such property beyond the said period. (4) The Adjudicating Authority, before authorising the retention or continuation of freezing of such property beyond the period specified in sub-section (1), shall satisfy himself that the property is prima facie involved in money-laundering and the property is required for the purposes of adjudication under Section 8. (5) After passing the order of confiscation under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 8, 81[Special Court], shall direct the release of all property other than the property involved in money-laundering to the person from whom such property was seized or the persons entitled to receive it. (6) Where an order releasing the property has been made by the 82[Special Court] under sub-section (6) of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action.]" 59. It is evident that Section 3 of the 2002 Act defines the offence of money laundering and it is not narrowly focused. The proceeds of crime is a pivotal ingredient constituting the offence of money laundering. Section 3 of the 2002 Act has been explained elaborately in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary's case (supra). It is evident that the definition of the offence of „money laundering' is wide and expansive. It makes liable not only the person who directly or indirectly indulges with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property, but even the person who knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected shall also be liable. Explanation (i) further explains the position. 60. Similarly, Explanation (ii) to Section 3 of the 2002 Act provides that the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and it continues till the time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime. While defining the expression &bdquo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are likely to be concealed etc., thereby frustrating any proceeding for confiscation then the Director or the authorised officer may provisionally attach such property. On the other hand, the reason to believe in Section 17(1) should be that the person has committed an act of money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds relating to money laundering or is in possession of any property related to crime then he may cause search of such property. Thus, the requirement or the standard of reason to believe in Section 17(1) is on a higher plane than in Section 5(1) inasmuch as the Director or the authorised officer must have reason to believe that the person concerned has committed the offence of money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime involved in money laundering etc., instead of being in possession of any proceeds of crime etc. 63. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 says that the authority who has been authorised under sub-section (1) shall immediately after search and seizure or upon issuance of the freezing order forward a copy of the reasons so recorded along with the material in hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired for the purposes of adjudication under Section 8. 68. Thus, that subsection (1) of Section 17 of PMLA deals with two stages: one is at the stage of pre-authorization and the next is the stage of post-authorization. While in the first part, the Director or the authorized officer must have reason to believe that the concerned person has committed an act of money laundering etc., in the second part, based on such reason to believe he may authorise any subordinate officer to enter into and search any building etc., if he has reason to suspect that record relating to money laundering or proceeds of crime are kept there. 69. Further Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act enables the Director or other authority specified by a general/special order under sub-section (1) to share information if he is of the opinion that the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened on the basis of information or material in his possession. 70. Moreover, sine qua non to proceed under the 2002 Act is the offence of money laundering which is wholly dependent upon the proceeds of crime. It is evident that the proceeds of crime should be the result of criminal activity relate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redicate offence, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR No. ECIR/RNZO/08/2023 on 13.02.2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and initiated proceedings against the Petitioner and others. 76. Subsequently, ED officials conducted a search at the Petitioner's premises on 21.11.2025, seizing Rs. 85,00,000 in cash, 134 property deeds, and loose sheets. The Enforcement Directorate filed Original Application No. 381 of 2025 before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17(4) of PMLA seeking retention of the seized assets. The Petitioner filed a reply on 06.02.2026, contending that the seized cash was from legitimate business operations of M/s Rudra Minerals and personal savings, and that the documents bore no nexus with proceeds of crime. He argued that the proceedings were arbitrary and devoid of material linking the assets to money laundering. 77. Meanwhile, the Petitioner contested the criminal trial arising from the predicate offence and was acquitted on 10.02.2026 in G.R. Case No. 1125 by the Judicial Magistrate, Godda, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the petitioner. The Peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner in the scheduled offence by the Court of first instance? (ii) Whether, in a case such as the present one, the investigation or enquiry initiated upon registration of an ECIR can be said to lose its force merely on account of the Petitioner's acquittal in the predicate offence, particularly when a specific provision has been incorporated under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? (iii) Whether, in exercise of the jurisdiction invoked before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction can be issued for release of properties which was attached by the Enforcement Directorate on the premise that they constitute proceeds of crime, thereby bypassing the statutory appellate remedy expressly provided under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? (iv) Whether, once the Petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, is it open to him to simultaneously approach two forums, in view of the settled principle that a litigant cannot pursue remedies in two forums at the same time? (v) Whether the information, which has been obtained during enquiry/investigation shared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding against the property being proceeds of crime predicated in the 2002 Act is a sui generis procedure. No comparison can be drawn between the mechanism regarding prevention, investigation or trial in connection with the scheduled offence governed by the provisions of the 1973 Code. 367. In the scheme of the 2002 Act upon identification of existence of property being proceeds of crime, the authority under this Act is expected to inquire into relevant aspects in relation to such property and take measures as may be necessary and specified in the 2002 Act including to attach the property for being dealt with as per the provisions of the 2002 Act. We have elaborately adverted to the procedure to be followed by the authorities for such attachment of the property being proceeds of crime and the follow-up steps of confiscation upon confirmation of the provisional attachment order by the adjudicating authority. For facilitating the adjudicating authority to confirm the provisional attachment order and direct confiscation, the authorities under the 2002 Act (i.e. Section 48) are expected to make an inquiry and investigate. Incidentally, when sufficient credible information is gat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt within the statutory period prescribed in the 1973 Code for filing of police report, if not released on bail before expiry thereof. 369. Suffice it to observe that being a special legislation providing for special mechanism regarding inquiry/investigation of offence of money laundering, analogy cannot be drawn from the provisions of the 1973 Code, in regard to registration of offence of money laundering and more so being a complaint procedure prescribed under the 2002 Act. Further, the authorities referred to in Section 48 of the 2002 Act alone are competent to file such complaint. It is a different matter that the materials/evidence collected by the same authorities for the purpose of civil action of attachment of proceeds of crime and confiscation thereof may be used to prosecute the person involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime for offence of money laundering. Considering the mechanism of inquiry/investigation for proceeding against the property (being proceeds of crime) under this Act by way of civil action (attachment and confiscation), there is no need to formally register an ECIR, unlike registration of an FIR by the jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statutory period provided in the 1973 Code, after arrest, the person would get all relevant materials forming part of the complaint filed by the authority under Section 44(1)(b) of the 2002 Act before the Special Court. 372. Viewed thus, supply of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is noticed that in some cases ED has furnished copy of ECIR to the person before filing of the complaint. That does not mean that in every case same procedure must be followed. It is enough, if ED at the time of arrest, contemporaneously discloses the grounds of such arrest to such person. Suffice it to observe that ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR which is mandatorily required to be recorded and supplied to the accused as per the provisions of the 1973 Code. Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made mandatory, may defeat the purpose sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act including frustrating the attachment of property (proceeds of crime). Non-supply of ECIR, which is essentially an internal document of ED, cannot be cited as violation of constitutional right. Concededly, the person arrested, in terms of Section 19 of the 2002....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Section 2(h) of the CrPC. It has further been held that the expression "investigation" is interchangeable with the function of "inquiry" to be undertaken by the authorities under the PMLA, including collection of evidence for being presented to the adjudicating authority for its consideration and for confirmation of provisional attachment order. It was also held in paragraph No. 194 of Vijay Madanlal (supra) that the provisions of the PMLA are not only to investigate into the offence of money laundering, but more importantly, to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property related to money laundering and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. 93. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in the said case that in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. For r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate remedies or, alternatively, upon the expiry of the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal without any challenge being preferred. 97. However, in the instant case it is evident from perusal of the order of the acquittal, which has been brought on record by way of filing an affidavit, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godda, that it was confined exclusively to the localized police investigation concerning a single intercepted truck. The Learned Magistrate had neither occasion nor jurisdiction to examine, much less adjudicate upon, the substantial cash recovery of Rs. 85 Lakhs, the 134 original property deeds, or the forensic trail of Rs. 8.94 crores deposited in the Petitioner's bank accounts. The recovery of the aforesaid money and deed is the admitted fact since the petitioner is perusing his remedy for release of the same before the adjudicating authority by filing reply to the show cause. 98. In total absence of any adjudication by the trial court regarding the seized wealth, the Petitioner cannot rely upon a localized, non-final acquittal as a blanket shield to demand release of the heavily documented proceeds of crime, which remain subjec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sets as "untainted". Further this Court at this stage under instant jurisdiction cannot obstruct fact-finding jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and to deliver a preemptive verdict on highly disputed questions of financial facts. 104. Further allowing the present Writ Petition at threshold would violate the cardinal principles of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies and would also render the entire adjudicatory machinery established by the Parliament under the PMLA, 2002 completely otiose and redundant. Further the Petitioner has a full, fair, and ongoing opportunity to present his factual and legal defenses including his arguments regarding the trial court acquittal before the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the prayer of writ petitioner is not fit to be allowed. 105. Further the relevant point which is required to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said Judgment distinguished ECIR from an FIR, clarifying that the ECIR is an internal document used by the ED and does not carry the same legal weight as an FIR and a Special Court can review it if necessary, during proceedings. It has further been observed that ECIR is not a statutory document, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to all concerned. At least the feasibility of placing such document on the official website of ED may be explored. 106. Since ECIR is an internal document, it requires no approval from the Magistrate and there could be no judicial superintendence of this proceeding and it can run parallel to the police FIR. Though, the ECIR is not an FIR, however, the ED is an Investigating Agency that has been constituted to investigate the various offences including the offence of money laundering. In these circumstances, after the instituting of ECIR in the instant case in the year 2023, the ED continued to enquire and, in that process, it collected information and material by various methods including search and seizure. 107. It is considered view of this Court that ECIR since is internal administrative file noting or departmental record, it cannot be the subject matter of a quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ECIR does not, in and of itself, entail penal consequences or affect the fundamental rights of the Petitioner in a manner that warrants judicial interference at the very threshold of a complex financial probe. 108. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Ape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h any officer, authority, or body functioning under any law, in public interest. Sub-section (2) specifically confines itself to enabling such exchange of information where contravention of another law is perceived, thereby serving the laudable object of facilitating coordination among enforcement agencies engaged in law enforcement, taxation, revenue collection, or prevention of illicit trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances. 114. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the authorized officer may be advised to send information to the jurisdictional police [under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act] for registration of a scheduled offence contemporaneously, "151. It is possible that in a given case after the discovery of huge volume of undisclosed property, the authorised officer may be advised to send information to the jurisdictional police [under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act] for registration of a scheduled offence contemporaneously, including for further investigation in a pending case, if any. On receipt of such information, the jurisdictional police would be obliged to register ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... underscores its operation in a field separate from the core mandate of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 118. It is evident upon a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Chapter II and Chapter X of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 that both operate within distinct spheres and are intended to serve different purposes. While Chapter II is concerned with penal consequences flowing from the commission of a scheduled offence, Chapter X, by contrast, is directed towards conferring powers of enquiry, coordination, and communication upon the Enforcement Directorate and allied agencies, thereby ensuring that the broader object of the Act is effectuated. 119. The reference to the predicate offence, as contemplated under Chapter II of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is premised upon the institution of a scheduled offence designated as the predicate offence. On that foundation, proceedings under the PMLA may be initiated for the purpose of investigation, by way of filing a complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction, so as to ascertain whether the ingredients envisaged under Section 3 of the Act are satisfied, thereby attracting th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty deeds. This discovery necessitated further enquiry/investigation on the basis of the ECIR already registered. It is urged that the matter presently remains at the stage of enquiry, and further the PMLA, Section 66(2) of the Act, 2002 expressly provides for communication of such inputs to other agencies, enabling them to proceed in accordance with law should any adverse material be found against the person concerned. 125. Further, as per record, the matter is at the stage of issuance of notice, intended to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to satisfy the authorities of the Enforcement Directorate by demonstrating that the assets and cash seized have been lawfully procured and are unconnected with any laundering trail. It is not a situation where the Petitioner is being proceeded by ED in secrecy; rather, the Directorate is proceeding by duly calling upon the Petitioner to explain the seizure of assets i.e. Rs. 85,00,000/- in cash and 134 original property deeds, found in his possession. 126. It is a well-settled principle of law that where a provision has been enacted in a statute, the rule of harmonious construction must be applied so as to advance the object and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein the principle of harmonious construction. The principle of harmonious construction is a rule of statutory interpretation employed by courts to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts between two or more provisions within the same statute or between different statutes. 131. The primary objective is to give effect to all provisions of an enactment, assuming that the legislature would not ordinarily intend to contradict itself. When faced with an apparent conflict, courts endeavor to reconcile the provisions in a manner that allows each to operate without nullifying the other, thereby upholding the legislative intent. The interpretation should, as far as possible, give full effect to both provisions. 132. A construction that renders one provision otiose or nugatory is generally to be avoided. Provisions must be read in their entirety and in the context of the whole statute. The legislative intent is gathered from the statute as a whole, not from isolated provisions. The interpretation must align with the overall purpose and object of the statute. The court may consider the mischief the statute sought to remedy and the object it sought to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 66 will be said to be misuse of power but that is not the case herein as per the details furnished in the counter affidavit i.e., the predicate offence is only for one offence while in course of interception/search a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- in cash, along with 134 original property deeds property has been found in possession of the petitioner. Moreover, in addition to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has already approached to the adjudicating authority. 138. It is pertinent to note that in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 194, has categorically observed that the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are not confined merely to investigation of the offence of money-laundering, but more significantly, are designed to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property related to money-laundering, together with matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. This authoritative pronouncement underscores that the legislative intent of the Act extends beyond prosecution, embracing preventive and confiscatory measures to ensure that the menace of laundering is comprehensi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the Act and Section 3 in particular. It is a different matter that the material collected during the inquiry by the authorities is utilised to bolster the allegation in the complaint to be filed against the person from whom the property has been recovered, being the proceeds of crime. Further, the expression "investigation" used in the 2002 Act is interchangeable with the function of "inquiry" to be undertaken by the authorities under the Act, including collection of evidence for being presented to the adjudicating authority for its consideration for confirmation of provisional attachment order. We need to keep in mind that the expanse of the provisions of the 2002 Act is of prevention of money laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof, including vesting of it in the Central Government and also setting up of agency and mechanism for coordinating measures for combating money laundering." 140. Thus, it becomes evident that the role of the authorities under Chapter VII of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is two-fold: first, to conduct enquiry and collect evidence so as to facilitate adjudication proceedings before the Adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition and quashing the ECIR at this stage would amount to usurping the exclusive statutory jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority. Such interference would permanently frustrate the statutory scheme and mandate of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 148. In so far as the Petitioner's reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts is concerned, it is manifest upon perusal of that those authorities rest upon distinct factual matrices. In the present case, as borne out from the supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.08.2026, the Directorate of Enforcement has acted in terms of Section 66(2) of the PMLA and has formally shared substantial evidence regarding unexplained assets i.e. 134 property deeds and Rs. 85 Lakhs in cash, which has been seized during the course of the investigation and search operations. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances herein, the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel, are inapplicable. 149. Further, it is settled position of law that the applicability of judgment is to be tested on the facts and circumstances of each and every case individually. Reference in this regard be made to the judgme....