Point of Law: The extent of exercise of discretion by Court is limited to prima facie satisfaction of Court and if Court does not find reasonable grounds of suspicion against the Accused, it may discharge him of offences alleged against him.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) and Section 47 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter “PMLA”) seeking setting aside of Order dated 15th May, 2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, in CC No. 158/2014 titled as “Enforcement Directorate vs Gagandeep Singh & Ors”, whereby all the accused persons were discharged on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against them.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. It is the background of the case that criminal proceedings under PMLA were initiated against Respondents by the Petitioner on the basis of independent intelligence gathered by them regarding money laundering activities. An FIR bearing No. 29/2011 under Section 21/25/29/61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, (hereinafter “NDPS Act”) and 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) was registered by the State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar against the Respondents alongwith other accused, and a Mutual Assistance Request (MAR) Note Verbale No. 458/2014 dated 27th August, 2014 (Letter of Request), was also issued by the Australian Competent Authority regarding the involvement of the Respondents in criminal activities that constitute offences under Part A and Part C of the schedule to PMLA, based on which, on 24th September, 2014, the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter “ED”) initiated criminal proceedings under the PMLA against the Respondents.

3. In the said FIR, dated 6th December, 2011, one Mukhtiar Singh and Swaran Singh were accused for being found in possession of 3 kilograms of Heroin and 1 kilogram of Heroin respectively. Subsequently, the present Respondents No. 1 and 2 were also arraigned as accused in the FIR on the statement of the co-accused Mukhtiar Singh and Sukhwant Singh, however, no recovery of contraband was made from the Respondents herein. Thereafter, learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar took cognizance and Chargesheet was filed against all accused, including Respondent No. 1 and 2. Vide Order dated 6th December, 2011, Respondent No. 1- Gagandeep Singh was charged, under Section 420 of the IPC for cheating Gurcharan Singh by way of inducing him to get issued mobile number 9781553753 on fake documents, under Section 468 of the IPC for forging certain other documents with the intention of using them to cheat and under Section 471 of the IPC for fraudulently using a genuine document that he knew to be forged, and Respondent No. 2-Paramdeep Singh was charged under Section 25 of the NDPS Act for knowingly using an Indica Car, bearing No. PB 02 BQ 8414, as conveyance for permitting it for the commission of the offence, from which Rs. 15 lakhs were recovered.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents were found to be involved in an international syndicate of laundering the money generated out of drug trafficking in Australia and other countries. The “Operation Zanella” of the Australian Federal Police revealed that the proceeds of the crime were laundered by the Respondents and their associates by sending the same through their Australian bank accounts to their bank accounts in Hong Kong and were thereby, made available to carry out activities of organized crime in different countries. While the private Respondents No. 1 to 3 are based in India, their counterparts, namely, Gulshan Kumar, Mandeep Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Saini and Ravinder Pal Singh are based in Australia and together they had been carrying out cross border criminal activities. The said counterparts in Australia have already been apprehended.

5. Subsequently, on 22nd November, 2014, a Criminal Complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA was filed by the ED against all the Respondents for commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, on the basis of investigation