The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prosecution under PMLA, emphasizing the conditions for initiating proceedings under PMLA and the essential elements of the offence of money laundering.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Malay Prasad, Ms. Saloni Mathur, Ms. Tanya Makkar, Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla and Sri. Kaustubh Singh Advocates for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel representing the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘E.D.’).

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged validity of the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Lucknow in Sessions Case No. 1220/2021, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicant. The applicant has also assailed another order passed in the aforesaid case on the same date framing charge of commission of offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) against the applicant.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 26.11.2020, an Inspector in the U. P. Vigilance Establishment filed a First Information Report (F.I.R.) No. 0003 of 2020 under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station Lucknow Sector, Vigilance Establishment, against the applicant stating that by means of a Government order dated 08.06.2018, U.P. Vigilance Establishment was directed to conduct an open enquiry against the applicant, who was the then Minister for Mining in U. P. Government.

It was found in enquiry that while working as a public servant, the applicant had earned 49,93,149/- from his known and valid sources Rs.49,93,149/- from his known and valid sources of income, but he spent 3,48,21,760/- on acquisition of properties Rs.49,93,149/- from his known and valid sources and maintenance during the same period. Thus the applicant spent 2,98,28,511/- in excess of his known income, which is Rs.49,93,149/- from his known and valid sources disproportionate to his income from the known and valid sources. The applicant could not give any satisfactory reply regarding disproportionate expenditure and acquisition of properties. Besides this, there was prima facie evidence that the applicant had acquired benami properties also. The F.I.R. states that the aforesaid acts of the applicant amount to commission of offence under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. On 14.01.2022, the Directorate of Enforcement registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) bearing number ECIR/LKZO/04/2021 in furtherance of the aforesaid F.I.R. No. 0003 of 2020. It is recorded in the ECIR that from the averments made in the F.I.R., it appears that it is expedient to make inquiries against the applicant relating to illegal earnings, which are “proceeds of crime”, i.e., tainted money, earned out of criminal activities and on the basis of the aforesaid information, a prima facie case of commission an offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA appears to have been made out.

5. The E.D. carried out investigation and on 08.04.2021, it filed a Complaint No. 94 of 2021 in the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering cases at Lucknow stating that the applicant has committed the offence of money-laundering and he is liable to be prosecuted and punished under Section 4 of the PMLA. It is inter-alia stated in the complaint that the relevant documents/evidences were collected from various authorities, including Banks, Registrar of Companies, District Registration Authorities etc. and those were examined. There is another case bearing number ECIR/LKZO/08/2019 in respect of illegal mining in District Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh, which was lodged on the basis of C.B.I. F.I.R. number RC 04 (A)/2019/SC-III/ND, in which the applicant is one of the named accused persons. The documents collected during the course of investigation in the aforesaid ECIR and the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA and Section 17 of PMLA during searches conducted on 30.01.2020 have also been taken into consideratio