A discharge petition under PMLA requires a prima facie case to be established; if such a case exists, the trial must proceed.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 3465 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023 in C.C. No. 60 of 2016.

1. Under assail is the judgment dated 12th October, 2023 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 3465 of 2023 in C.C. No. 60 of 2016.

2. The petitioners instituted a petition for discharge under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, which was rejected by the Special Court for CBI Cases. The petitioners are Accused Nos. 8 and 14 respectively.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. Tripartite agreement between A1-Srinivasan and the petitioners herein were signed on 13.02.2008, whereby, inter-alia possession of a company was handed over to A1-Srinivasan and the 1st petitioner and other shareholders sold their respective shareholding to A1. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.02.2008 entered into between A6/Company represented by A1 and Annur Jayabalaji Textiles, machineries were purchased by A6 out of proceeds of crime and such machineries were delivered and installed in the factory of the 2nd petitioner ARI Fabrics Limited/A14 in between 13.02.2008 and 09.05.2008. On 10.12.2008, the 1st petitioner here Mr. S.K. Karthikeyan was appointed as Director of English Cotton Company Private Limited, which is handed over by the A1-Srinivasan. On 23.07.2009 FIR No. 27 of 2009 was registered based on the complaint, 1st petitioner herein against A1-Srininvasan. The FIR was registered by Coimbatore District Crime Branch for the offences under Section 120(b), 468, 471, 409 IPC.

4. During August and September, 2009, the 1st petitioner Mr. S.K. Karthikeyan took possession of the 2nd petitioner/A14 from A1-Srinivasan. In between April and June, 2010, A1 took back the administration of the 2nd petitioner/company from the 1st petitioner herein. On 10.12.2010 a complaint regarding scheduled offence under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [herein after referred as “PMLA”] was received by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from SBI Global Factories Limited. Consequently, on 28.11.2011, CBI filed chargesheet No. 10 of 2011 in the scheduled offence IPC 120B, 420 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The Central Bureau of Investigation (Bank Security and Frauds Cell), Bangalore upon completion of investigation filed its final report before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Coimbatore under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in Chargesheet No. 10 of 2011 dated 28.11.2011, alleging commission of offences punishable as stated in the above paragraph.

6. The 1st petitioner/Mr. S.K. Karthikeyan has written a letter to State Bank of India (SBI) regarding One Time Settlement (OTS) for 2nd petitioner/Company. In the said letter dated 12.04.2014, the 1st petitioner states that he is the Managing Director of the 2nd petitioner/Company. Thereafter, on 23.05.2016, the complaint was filed in C.C. No. 60 of 2016, under Section 45 read with Sections 3, 4, 8(5) and 70(1) and (2) of the PMLA. Subsequently, supplementary complaint was filed on 17.11.2021 in C.C. No. 60 of 2016, wherein, the petitioners were included as accused persons.

7. Based on the informations and the scheduled offence registered in FIR dated 07.10.2010, the competent authorities of the Enforcement Directorate formed an opinion regarding prima facie case and had reason to believe that an offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA appeared to had been committed. Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was recorded in the year 2011.

8. The petitioners filed Discharge Petition under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

9. Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would mainly contend that the 1st petitione