In money laundering proceedings, discharge petitions cannot be used to conduct mini-trials. Courts must limit their focus to whether a scheduled predicate offence exists and if there is prima facie evidence of proceeds of crime; factual disputes remain exclusively within the purview of the trial.

ORDER :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

These criminal revision petitions have been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in Criminal M.P. Nos. 6347 and 6348 of 2022 in C.C. No. 5 of 2022, dismissing the applications filed for discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case and the one filed for appointment of an expert to inspect the areas and to file a report.

2. The Enforcement Directorate has launched prosecution by filing a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the “Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002” (for brevity hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) for the offence of money laundering. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s. Om Sri Granites and M/s. Pallava Granites Industries Limited and their respective partners and key officials were involved in various illegal granite stone quarrying activities, forgery, illegal usage of explosives, encroachment, trespassing and causing loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.221.73 crores and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves during the period between 2001 to 2012. FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos. 158 of 2012, 206 of 2012 and 223 of 2013 for commission of various offences. Charge sheets have been laid in Crime No. 158 of 2012 on 15.09.2013, in Crime No. 206 of 2012 on 14.06.2016 and in Crime No. 223 of 2013 on 14.07.2016.

3. The Enforcement Directorate got into the scene and on investigation, it came to light that there was huge proceeds of crime involved approximately to the tune of Rs.215.36 crores. In view of the same, after collection of the entire materials and after recording the statements of the witnesses and accused persons, proceedings were initiated for provisionally attaching the properties and one such property that was attached belonged to the petitioner (A9). Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the extent of property that was attached was to the tune of Rs.56,63,874/-, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order of provisional attachment.

4. It is under these circumstances, the private complaint came to be filed by the Enforcement Directorate for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA and for confiscation of the properties.

5. After cognizance was taken by the Special Court, summons were issued and after receipt of summons, the petitioner (A9) filed two petitions. Crl.M.P. No. 6348 of 2022 has been filed seeking for discharge from the criminal case. Crl.M.P. No. 6349 of 2022 was filed for appointment of an expert to inspect the areas and to file a report. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not have any role to play in the functioning of the partnership firms and therefore there is no question of any ill-gotten money insofar as the petitioner is concerned and since there are no materials to substantiate the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner sought for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

6. The petitioner had also sought for appointment of an expert on the ground that the department had omitted to properly inspect the waste granite stones which were kept in a heap at the site and therefore, to get a correct picture, he sought for appointment of an expert to inspect and to file a report.

7. The Enforcement Directorate filed a counter-affidavit and took the stand that the petitioner (A9) was holding 10.5% shares and he was a working partner and was actively involved in the running of the business. The money