The trial court must provide a thorough examination of evidence and articulate clear reasoning when ruling on discharge petitions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

ORDER :

(G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The revision petitioner herein figures as Accused No.2 in the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement in C.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge (CBI Cases) Madurai. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the accused. The revision petitioner herein filed Crl MP No. 4274 of 2023 under Section 227 of Cr.PC to discharge him. The court below vide order dated 30.05.2024 dismissed the petition. Questioning the same, this criminal revision case has been filed.

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner raised very many contentions both in law as well as on facts. He, however, made it clear that he would be satisfied if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the trial court for fresh consideration.

3.The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Enforcement Directorate on the other hand submitted that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the revision petitioner and that the impugned order does not call for interference.

4.My esteemed Sister Judge has written a detailed order rejecting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and endorsing the stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General. I went through the same. I am, however, of the view that since the order of the learned trial Judge is virtually non-speaking and is further vitiated by non-application of mind, it has to be set aside on that sole ground and the matter remanded. While an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding and the appellate court is obliged to re-examine the record both on facts and law, the revisional court has to primarily see if the order of the trial court suffers from any perversity or irregularity.

5.The impugned order concludes thus :

“77.Considering the way in which the investigation was conducted by the respondent / complainant and the materials available in this case and the reports of Collector Shri.U.Sagayam IAS, Special Officer/Legal Commissioner appointed by Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the report submitted by the Revenue Department, District Collector and the evaluation report submitted by the Shri.N.C.Mohandas, Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, this Court feels that there are materials to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences u/s. 120B of IPC r/w Sec.447, 379, 409, 411, 420, 434, 468, 471, 304 (ii), 109, 114, 511 r/w Section 109, 116, 119 & 202 of IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 3(a) & 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sec.4 of TNPPDL Act. Therefore this Court is not inclined to allow this Petition.”

The learned Trial Judge has proceeded in the matter as if he is dealing with a discharge petition in the prosecution for predicate offences. He appears to have forgotten that he is dealing with PMLA prosecution. I am not able to gloss over the said paragraph as if it is a typing error. It is only from the written text, the mental process of the judge is often discerned. In matters concerning liberty, courts have to be extremely cautious. They cannot afford to be casual. Paragraph 77 of the impugned order is an instance of casual approach. The first 24 paragraphs of the impugned order repeat the contentions of the discharge petition. Paragraphs 25 and 26 refer to the erroneous dismissal of an earlier discharge petition and hold that the present discharge petition is maintainable. Paragraphs 27 to 73 reflect the stand of the Enforcement Directorate as set out in their counter. Para 74 to 76 are as follows :

“74)Further the respondent has followed the procedure laid down under the PML Act u/