IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that under the PMLA, indirect involvement in money laundering suffices for prosecution, and the burden of proof rests on the accused to prove their innocence.

ORDER :

(S.M. Subramaniam, J.) :

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.71 of 2024: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in respect of order dated 29.11.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.3253 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI, Chennai and set aside the order of dismissal of Discharge Petition and discharge the revision petitioner.)

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2024: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in respect of order dated 29.11.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.3251 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI, Chennai and set aside the order of dismissal of Discharge Petition and discharge the revision petitioner.)

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.116 of 2024: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records in respect of order dated 29.11.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.3252 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI, Chennai and set aside the order of dismissal of Discharge Petition and discharge the revision petitioner.)

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2024: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to stay all the proceedings of the case on the file of the Learned XIII Additional CBI Court, Chennai, pending disposal of the criminal revision petition. Dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner in the proceedings of the case pending trial in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Learned XIII Additional CBI Court, Chennai, pending disposal of the criminal revision petition. Set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.7519 of 2023 dated 29.11.2023 in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2022 by the Learned XIII Additional CBI Court, Chennai.)

Under assail is the order dated 29th November, 2023 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3253, 3251, 3523 & 7519 of 2023 in Spl.C.C.Nos.5, 6, 4 & 7 of 2022.

2. The petitioners/accused persons filed Discharge Petitions, which were rejected. Challenging the same the present criminal revision cases are

3. It is not in dispute that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai registered First Information Report (F.I.R) under Section 120-B read with 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The information received was that the Punjab National Bank (PNB), Mint Street, Chennai is authorised to deal in foreign exchange. 19 current accounts were fraudulently opened from January to May, 2015 over a period of five months. Through the said accounts, a huge amount to the tune of Rs.424.58/- Crores were transacted, which reached foreign countries including Hong Kong and United Arab Emirates (UAE).

4. Mr.J.Sivanandharaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would mainly raise two grounds in order to assail the impugned order. The first ground raised is that the Enforcement Directorate failed to establish “proceeds of crime” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred as “PMLA”]. Secondly, money laundering has not been established so as to invoke Section 3 of the PMLA. Thus, invocation of PMLA is untenable. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have not dealt with the money transacted through Punjab National Bank. Therefore, the petitioners/accused persons are innocent of the allegations and no case against them is made out under PMLA. The Trial Court has not considered the mandatory requirements as contemplated under Section 2(1)(u) and Section 3 of the PMLA.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would urge this Court by contending that the investigation made by the Directorate of Enforcement would be insufficient to fit in the case of the petitioners under Section 3 of PMLA. The petitioners hav