The court upheld the applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to properties linked to illegal mining activities, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of alleged proceeds of crime during trial.

ORDER :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C.No.9 of 2018 filed before the Principal District Judge at Madurai (The Special Court constituted u/s.43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ), now pending on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and the consequential summon dated 21.12.2018 issued by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai and quash the same so far as the petitioner/4th accused is concerned.

2. Records show that, earlier, the petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court and, by order dated 8.2.2021, the Division Bench allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and the consequential summon dated 21.12.2018.

3. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein filed Criminal Appeal Nos.110-112 of 2022. By order dated 21.1.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order dated 8.2.2021 and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration on merits and in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while remanding the matter, directed the parties to appear before the High Court on 1.2.2022, when the High Court may proceed to hear the remanded matter on that day itself or assign a suitable date as may be convenient to it, while ensuring that the remanded proceedings are disposed of expeditiously.

4. The matter was taken up by the roster Bench on 3.2.2022 and at the request of both sides, adjourned to 22.2.2022. On 22.2.2022, at the request of both sides, the matter was adjourned to 7.3.2022. Thereafter, the matter was not listed and when the matter was listed before us for the first time on 21.11.2025, we have directed the office to prepare a paper book containing the pleadings of the parties and directed to list it on 8.12.2025. On 8.12.2025, the matter was adjourned to 9.12.2025 and on 9.12.2025, the matter was fully heard and reserved for orders.

5.1. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner was doing quarrying business with the partners, namely (i) P.Rajasekaran; (ii) C.Rabeek Raja; (iii) Ravindra Babu; (iv) Periyakaruppan, and all the partners were effectively participating and doing the business. The petitioner purchased a property to do quarrying business by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.1.2000 from Bannari Amman Sugars Limited admeasuring an extent of 10.28 Acres comprised in various survey numbers. The vendor, namely, Bannari Amman Sugars Limited (Granite Division), Coimbatore had obtained two granite mining leases from Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1993 and it operated the quarry by entering into agreement for excavation of granite blocks with AAR KAY PEE Granites, Tirupattur. Subsequently, due to some reasons, the company decided to sell outright the granite quarry and the petitioner purchased the same on 31.01.2000 at a cost of Rs.7,00,000/- through a registered sale deed.

5.2. Pursuant thereto, in the year 2000, Bannari Amman Sugars Limited made an application on 28.7.2000 to the Government through the District Collector, Madurai, and requested to transfer the lease granted to them in favour of the petitioner. In response, the Government accorded consent by way of government order on 27.2.2001 for transfer of quarry lease for quarrying multi-coloured granite over an extent of 0.26.0 hectare in Survey Nos.211/4B and 211/4C for the remaining period. Likewise, the Government had also accorded consent for the transfer of quarry lease for quarrying multi- coloured granite over an extent of 3.76.0 hectares to the petitioner in various survey numbers.

5.3. On the basis of the aforesaid two government orders, Bannarai Amman Sugars Limited handed over the quarry to the petitioner after completing the process of transferring the lease in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner had also commenced its quarrying activi