ORDER :

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1. P. Palanichamy is a mining baron and the founder of the partnership firms viz. M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites and M/s. PRP Granite Exports, engaged in granite mining in and around Madurai. The firms started by him obtained mining leases from the Government and it is alleged that these firms did not confine themselves to the areas licensed to them, but, went on a plunder spree, by illegally mining every possible landscape in and around Madurai.

2.2. When this came to light, there was a furore and the State law enforcement agencies woke up from their self-induced slumber and plunged into action by registering around 16 FIRs on the findings of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mining.

2.3. Similarly, the Public Works Department found that the PRP group had not spared even the water canals in that area, for which, 15 FIRs were registered.

2.4. The police also found that the PRP group had indulged in land grabbing by illegally encroaching into lands belonging to Temples, Government and innocent individuals, for which, 11 FIRs were registered.

2.5. The common thread that runs through most of the FIRs is Section 120-B read with 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Approximately, it was found that a sum of Rs. 2830.98 crores was earned by the PRP group via the aforesaid criminal activities. On coming to know of this, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No. CEZO/15/2013 and took up investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "the PML Act").

2.6. After recording the statements of various persons and collecting materials, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint in C.C. No. 10 of 2018 in the Court of the Principal Judge (Special Court under the PML Act), Madurai for the offences under Section 3 read with 4 and 8(5) of the PML Act against 10 accused including Palanichamy (A4), for quashing which, PRP Granite Exports (A3), Selvi (A7), Chandraleka (A8) and Sivaranjani (A10) are before this Court. Selvi (A7) is the wife of Palanichamy (A4); Chandraleka (A8) is his daughter-in-law; and Sivaranjani (A10) is his daughter.

3. Heard Mr. A. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Ramesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.

4. At the outset, Mr. A. Ramesh submitted that he is withdrawing this petition in respect of PRP Granite Exports (A3) and recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed vis-a-vis PRP Granite Exports (A3).

5. It is beyond cavil that some of the offences registered by the State police against PRP group are schedule offences under the PML Act and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to investigate under the PML Act was rightly not questioned across the Bar.

6. In the complaint in C.C. No. 10 of 2018, the Enforcement Directorate has shown PRP Exports, PRP Granites and PRP Granite Exports as A1, A2 and A3 respectively, apart from A4 to A10, who are natural persons and partners in the aforesaid firms during the relevant period.

7. Mr. A. Ramesh produced a copy of the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Special Court, while taking cognizance of the offence and submitted that the said order does not disclose application of mind at all. He placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI [(2015) 4 SCC 609] and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in S.C. Jayachandra Vs. Enforcement Directorate and submitted that the order of cognizance in this case deserves to be set aside and the matter to be remanded to the trial Court for passing cognizance order afresh.

8. In our opinion, though an order of taking cognizance should reflect application of mind by the Court, it is not a m