All the three applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in all these cases is the same.

2. Before coming to the point of issue, the facts of the case need to be taken notice of.

3. A complaint case was lodged in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by the complainant Rajiv Sharma alleging therein that the then Chief Minister Shri Madhu Koda, while holding the office of the Chief Minister and before that office of Minister, Mines and Co-operative amassed huge properties moveable as well as immovable by indulging in corrupt practices and thereby embezzled public money in collusion with Vinod Sinha [petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) No. 257 of 2012] and Sanjay Kumar Choudhary. Having acquired ill-gotten money in crores in connivance with aforesaid two persons they purchased/invested money in number of Companies not only in India but also at abroad including Dubai where crores of rupees were transferred through Hawala. That apart, money was also invested in crores in purchasing land and also in purchasing Mines in a foreign country, namely, Liberia.

4. The said complaint was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Vigilance Police Station, Ranchi under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its institution and investigation. Accordingly, it was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 of 2009 under Sections 420, 423, 424, 465 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Later on, the investigation was taken over by the C.B.I. While the C.B.I. was proceeding with the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate on the basis of allegation made in the vigilance case lodged Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against the persons who had been made accused in the yigilance case.

5. So far as petitioner Binod Kumar Sinha is concerned, the Enforcement Directorate lodged a case which was registered as Enforcement Case Information Report No. ECIR/02/PAT/09/AD which was taken for enquiry and during enquiry it was revealed that the money acquired through corrupt and illegal means was transferred to a number of closed associates and companies in India and also in foreign countries by illegal means and thereby whatever properties were acquired moveable or immoveable, those were acquired through the- proceeds of crime. In the said case when complaint was filed under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, cognizance of the offence was taken. Thereupon an application was filed for staying the further proceeding until and unless it is established by the prosecution that the petitioner having committed scheduled of. fences has acquired properties through proceeds of the said crime but the prayer was rejected, vide order dated 11.62012 which is under challenge.

6. Similarly, in the said Enforcement Case Information Report No. ECIR/02/PAT/ 09/AD when complaint was filed under Section 45 of the PMLA Act against Kamlesh Kumar Singh, petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 920 of 2012 cognizance of the offence was taken. Subsequently, an application for discharge was filed taking a plea that unless the petitioner is found to have committed scheduled offence, he cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 3 of the Act and that it has still not been established by the prosecution that the petitioner by committing scheduled offence has acquired properties by corrupt or illegal means and has invested it in purchasing moveable and immovable properties. That application was rejected vide order dated 25.9.2012 which is under challenge.

7. The facts which has given rise to Cr. Rev. No. 699 of 2011 are that a complaint was filed by one Kumar Vinod, upon which Vigilance lodged a case under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was Ru