Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 612

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
Gupta Traders – Appellant
Versus
State through Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 1075 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1120 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1121 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1122 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1126 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1127 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1128 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1129 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1132 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1133 of 2025 | Cr. Revision No. 1134 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anshuman Sinha, Aditya Tiwari, Prakhar Prakash, Ankit Apurva
For the Respondents: Vandana Singh, Neha Pandey, Khushbu

Proceedings under money laundering legislation survive if predicate offenses remain pending or active via protest petitions. At the discharge stage, the court's role is restricted to determining if a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists, precluding a mini-trial or detailed evaluation of evidentiary merits.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 4 and 24 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 250, 232 - Criminal Revision - Discharge application - Scope and ambit - At the stage of discharge, the court is required to sift and weigh evidence only to find out if there is a prima facie case or grave suspicion of commission of an offence - The principle of discharge cannot be construed as a mini-trial to assess the probative value of evidence or to examine the defence of the accused - An order of discharge is not to be passed if the materials on record disclose the elements of the alleged offence even if they are based on strong suspicion. (Paras 39, 56, 57, 61, 62, 67, 68 and 71)

(B) Money Laundering - Independent nature of offence - Survival of prosecution - The existence of a scheduled offence is a foundational fact; however, the prosecution for money laundering is independent and does not necessitate that the accused must also be a named accused in the predicate scheduled offence - Pending proceedings, including a protest petition treated as a complaint, constitute an active predicate offence sufficient to sustain PMLA proceedings. (Paras 95, 96, 98, 103, 107 and 108)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed for discharge from criminal proceedings under the PMLA, contending that all predicate offences had been quashed, closed, or resulted in acquittal, thereby extinguishing the legal foundation for the prosecution. The respondent argued that active predicate offences remained and that there were significant financial trails and layering of proceeds of crime into corporate entities, establishing a clear prima facie case.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that several predicate matters remained active, either through pending protest petitions or remanded cases. It emphasized that PMLA proceedings do not collapse simply because some predicate offences might be dropped, provided the investigative record reveals sufficient material suggesting the involvement in money laundering activities.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the discharge application was legally erroneous and whether a prima facie case was established to continue the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge, courts must assume prosecution materials are true and limit the inquiry to whether strong suspicion exists to warrant a trial. The offence of money laundering is distinct, and the legal presumption under the Act regarding proceeds of crime places a burden on the accused to rebut the findings during trial, not at the threshold discharge stage.

Result: Criminal revision petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation of linked criminal revision petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. ed investigation establishes prima facie money laundering through criminal syndicates. (Para 4)
3. parties contest the existence of pmla proceeds without a subsisting predicate offence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. elucidation of pmla statutory definitions and scope of money laundering. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
5. stage of discharge scope: prima facie evaluation without mini-trial. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD -------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Prakhar Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, Advocate : Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Khushbu, Advocate ------

C.A.V. on 04.02.2026 Pronounced on 27/02/2026

1. Since these matters are interlinked and, as such, these are heard together and being disposed of by this common order/judgment.

2. All these Criminal Revision petitions have been filed under sections 438 & 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

3. These Criminal Revision petitions are directed against the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 08 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/09/2022 registered for the offence under Sections 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA,2002) whereby and whereunder, the Miscellaneous Criminal Applications filed by the petitioner seeking discharge, have been rejected.

Factual Matrix

4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the instant petitions which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:

(i) The basis of present ECIR case is following 4 FIR [1. Deoghar Town PS Case No. 342 of 2020 dated 11.07.2020 u/s.419/420/467/468/471/379/427/ 120B/34 of the IPC (Land FIR), 2. Jasidih PS Case No FIR No. 50 of 2020 dated 21.01.2020 u/s. 420/166/463/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC (Land FIR), 3. Margomunda PS Case No 27 of 2020 dated 16.07.2020 u/s. 420/379/120B IPC and section 4/21 of Jharkhand Mines Minerals (Development & Regulation), 1957 and Section 54 of J.M.M. Grant Rules, 2004 [Sand FIR] and 4. Rikhiya PS Case No 01 of 2022 dated 01.01.2022 u/s. 272/273/467 IPC and section

47A of Jharkhand Excise Duty Act, 1915 (Liquor FIR)].

The details of above mentioned 4 FIR is as follows.

(ii) In short as per first FIR i.e. Deoghar Town PS Case No. 342 of 2020 dated 11.07.2020 u/s. 419/420/467/468/471/379/427/120B/34 of the IPC (Land FIR) is that informant Kiran Singh had purchased, the land located in Deoghar, in Mouza- Shyamganj, Mohalla- Castair’s Town popularly known as “Roy Bangla” in the year 1998 and were in peaceful possession of the same and had also been paying all the taxes to the government against the said property since 1998 till the accused Jogendra Tiwari and others took over the possession of the land by using illegal means, demolished the old house situated thereon and fraudulent sold of parts of the land. It also surfaced that the petitioner also received proceeds of crime arising out of such sale of property.

(iii) In short as per second FIR i.e. Jasidih PS Case No FIR No. 50 of 2020 dated 21.01.2020 u/s. 420/166/463/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC (Land FIR) is that the petitioner Jogendra Tiwari along with the other accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy for issuance and production of forged land possession certificate (LPC) and deed for land measuring 27,413.25 square feet at Mouza Shyamaganj, thana no. 413, Plot No. 775 and 776 District Deoghar. LPC of the aforesaid land was sent by Amar Prasad vide email dt 16.01.2020 at 5.40P.M. to District Sub Registrar bearing letter no. 1024 dt. 03.07.2019. It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 612

Cases Referred (3)