Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R. POORNIMA
S. Nagarajan – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Rep. by the Assistant Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue – Respondent
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
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.
If a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against him.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows for independent proceedings regardless of the status of the scheduled offence, provided there is prima facie evidence of money laundering.
The court affirmed that jurisdictional and evidentiary disputes must be resolved during trial, not at the discharge stage under PMLA.
The extent of exercise of discretion by Court is limited to prima facie satisfaction of Court and if Court does not find reasonable grounds of suspicion against the Accused, it may discharge him of o....
Point of Law : The extent of exercise of discretion by Court is limited to prima facie satisfaction of Court and if Court does not find reasonable grounds of suspicion against the Accused, it may dis....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
