Jharkhand High Court
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal Alias Bishnu Kumar ... vs Enforcement Directorate on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:34679
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 445 of 2025
-----
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal alias Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, aged
about 57 years, son of Late Chiranjee Lal Agarwala,
resident of Jhalda, P.O. Jhalda, P.S. Jhalda, District
Purulia -723202 (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Enforcement Directorate, Ranchi through Additional
Director, having its Zonal Office at Plot No. 1502/B, Airport
Road, Hinoo, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Airport, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
... Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ansuman Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate;
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate;
------
th
C.A.V. on 29 October, 2025 Pronounced on 19/11/2025
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed under
sections 438 and 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023(BNSS 2023), against the order dated
25.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner- -cum- Special Judge, PML Court, Ranchi
in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2212 of 2024
in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023
(ECIR/RNZO/10/2023) registered for the offence under
sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (in short PMLA,2002) whereby and
2025:JHHC:34679
whereunder, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code/
Section 250 BNSS, 2023 has been rejected and the case
is pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner- -cum- Special Judge, PML Court, Ranchi.
2. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that we have the
heard learned counsel for the parties at length on
different dates, which are being referred herein. Further,
liberty, as prayed on behalf of parties to file written
statement, was granted. In pursuant thereto, exhaustive
written note of argument was filed on behalf of
petitioner.
3. The matter was taken up on 25.07.2025, on which
following order has been passed, which is quoted as
under:
Order No. 02/Dated 25th July, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate.
2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the ED, has
submitted that since the case is coming for the first time, as
such, he may be granted two weeks‟ time to file counter
affidavit.
3. Time, as prayed for, is granted.
4. List this matter on 22.08.2025 under the appropriate
heading.
5. In the meanwhile, let the counter affidavit be filed by the
Enforcement Directorate.
2025:JHHC:34679
4. Thereafter on 08.10.2025 matter was listed on Board
and was heard but due to paucity of time, the argument
advanced on behalf of petitioner could not be completed,
for ready reference the order dated 08.10.2025 is being
quoted as under:
Order No. 03 : Dated 8th October, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Ansuman Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner being assisted by Mr. Arpan Mishra.
2. Due to paucity of time, the argument advanced on
behalf of petitioner could not be completed, hence with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter
is adjourned to be listed on next Wednesday.
3. List this case on 15.10.2025.
5. The instant matter was listed on 15.10.2025 and the
learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length,
for ready reference the said order is being quoted as
under:
Order No. 04/Dated 15 October, 2025th
1. Heard Mr. Ansuman Sinha, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner.
2. Due to paucity of time, argument could not be
concluded, as such, post this matter on the next working
day, i.e., on 29.10.2025, within top five cases.
6. Thereafter, on 29.10.2025 the matter was finally heard
at length and the matter was reserved and liberty was
granted to the learned counsel for the parties to file
written notes of argument by 04.11.2025, for ready
reference the order dated 29.10.2025 is being quoted as
under:
2025:JHHC:34679
Order No. 05 : Dated 29 October, 2025th
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Argument concluded.
3. Order reserved.
4. As prayed for, the parties are at liberty to file written notes
of argument by 04.11.2025.
7. In pursuance of order dated 29th October 2025 the
learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written notes
of argument.
8. The aforesaid notes of argument will be treated as part of
the record and while deciding the instant matter the
arguments made in the said ―notes of argument‖ has
been taken into consideration by this Court.
Factual Matrix:
9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in
the instant petition which requires to be enumerated
herein, read as under:
I. An ECIR bearing No. RNZO/10/2023 was
recorded on 07.03.2023 and investigation under
the provisions of prevention of Money Laundering
Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR being
Sadar PS Case No. 399 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022
registered for the offences under sections
406,420,467,468, 447, 504,506, 341, 323 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code since offences under
sections 420 and 467 of IPC are Scheduled
Offences under Part A of the Schedule of PMLA,
2025:JHHC:34679
2002. On 1.9.2023, after completion of
investigation in connection with aforementioned
ECIR, the Directorate of Enforcement filed the
Prosecution Complaint arraigning the petitioner
as Accused No.9.
II. The Prosecution Complaint contained
reference to the First Information Report being
Sadar PS Case No. 399 of 2022 which was
registered on the directions of the learned court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection
with Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed by
order dated 28.6.2022. The said complaint case
was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh
Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Punit
Bhargava for fraudulently acquiring one acre of
land situated at Cheshire Home Road, Plot No. 28,
Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
III. It has been alleged that Rajesh Rai illegally
and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the
name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad. On the
strength of the said Power of Attorney they
prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-
mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to
2025:JHHC:34679
Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/-.
IV. Puneet Bhargava further sold the said land to
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal (present petitioner)
through two Sale Deeds for a total amount of Rs.
1,80, 00,000/- (Two Sale Deeds dated 01.04.2021
for an amount of Rs. 1, 02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,
40, 000/-).
V. It is revealed that through the consideration
amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed,
Bharat Prasad and Puneet Bhargav is shown as
Rs. 1,78,55,800/- only an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- was paid from the account of Shiva
Fabcons- one proprietorship firm of Punit
Bhargava into the account of Rajesh Rai on
12.02.2021. Investigation further reveals that out
of the said Rs. 25 lakh an amount of Rs.
18,00,000/- was immediately transferred to the
Bank account of Green Traders, a partnership
firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain.
VI. Further during the investigation, Surveys were
conducted on 09.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 at the
circle office Bargai Ranchi and office of Registrar
of assurances Kolkata respectively and original
2025:JHHC:34679
register II/volumes containing the above entry
were inspected, falsification of the original records
were identified and the custody of original
registers were taken. After obtaining permission
the original registers were sent for examination by
an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science,
Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar
which confirmed the forgery and tampering in the
above stated registers.
VII. Investigation thus revealed that the
accused persons namely Afsar Ali, Md Saddam
Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal
[present petitioner], Chhavi Ranjan, Prem
Prakash, Punit Bhargava, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan
Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders
and they are involved in mass forgery. Further,
during course of investigation three immovable
properties were provisionally attached vide order
dated 31.08.2023.
VIII. Based on the above, the Directorate of
Enforcement registered ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023
in ECIR / RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 in
connection with which the Prosecution Complaint
dated 01.09.2023 was filed.
2025:JHHC:34679
IX. The petitioner was arrested on 31.07.2023 and
was enlarged on bail by this Court on 12.01.2024.
X. After investigation, the complainant ED filed a
prosecution complaint U/s 45 of PMLA in which
10 persons were made accused. Alongwith the
said Prosecution Complaint, the Complainant
Department provided a list of witnesses and list of
Relied upon Documents collected during
investigation.
XI. The complainant ED filed the prosecution
complaint dated 01.09.2023 in ECIR No.
RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 making the
present Petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, as
Accused No.9. It has been alleged in the said
Complaint dated 01.09.2023 that the petitioner
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal is the main beneficiary of
the entire fraud and is an accused who habitually
indulges in the activities connected with Proceeds
of crime i.e. its acquisition, possession and
concealment use and projecting and claiming the
proceeds of crime as untainted property. It is
further alleged that the willful indulgence and
habitual involvement in the activities connected
with proceeds of crime is evident from the fact
2025:JHHC:34679
that he not only acquired the property
admeasuring 1 acre at the Cheshire Home Road
but also acquired two government properties by
fraudulent means which are nothing but his
criminal activities. The alleged allegations
pertaining to the said three landed properties are
as under: -
Cheshire Home Road Property- It is alleged by
the complainant that an FIR No 399/2022 dated
08.09.2022 was registered alleging that Rajesh
Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently
made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiyaz
Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of
the said power of attorney, they allegedly
prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-
mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to
Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/-, Punit Bhargava further sold the
said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale
deeds for the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-.
(Vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for
an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and Rs.
77,40,000/-). It has been further alleged by the
complainant that the investigation has revealed
2025:JHHC:34679
that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has been assisted by
Prem Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan and others in
acquiring proceeds of crime in the form of landed
properties and thereby committed the offence of
money laundering.
Pugru Land Property- It is alleged by the
complainant that the investigation has
established that the property situated at Khata
no. 93, Plot no. 543, 544, 546 and 547, total area
9.30 acres acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal
was allegedly a government property (Khasmahal
Land). It is alleged that the said property has
been acquired by the accused Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal by allegedly influencing the government
officials including the Ex-DC Chhavi Ranjan who
allegedly helped him by suppressing and shelving
all the official records and documents which
established that the above property acquired by
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a government
property (Khasmahal Land). It is further alleged
that this property has been in possession of
Nazarat Hussain & his family without any
grounds and has been in their occupation and
later this land was taken on lease by
2025:JHHC:34679
Ramchandra Mukherjee effective from the year
1985 and the lease expired in the year 2014 after
which, the lease of the above-stated land was not
renewed in the name of any person. It is further
alleged that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by
concealing and suppressing the facts and with
the assistance of the accused Chhavi Ranjan and
others purchased this Khasmahal land in an
allegedly illegal manner and thereby committed
the offence of money laundering.
Siram Land Property- It is alleged by the
complainant that the investigation has
established that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal allegedly
in connivance with the accused Chhavi Ranjan
acquired government property (property of the
defence) admeasuring 5.883 acres, situated at
M.S Plot no. 908, 851(P) and 910(P), Ward no. VI
of Ranchi Municipality, Ranchi vide deed No 922
of 2018. It is further alleged that the then DC
Chhavi Ranjan allegedly helped him by
suppressing and overlooking all the official
records and documents which established that
the above property was acquired by the defence
in the year 1949 by publishing it in a Gazette
2025:JHHC:34679
dated 03.08.1949. The matter regarding this land
was allegedly pending in the court of the DC
Ranchi and the accused Chhavi Ranjan was the
DC Ranchi during material period who allegedly
extended undue favors deliberately to Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal and passed orders favourable for
him and thus committed the offence of money
laundering.
X.Thereafter, cognizance of the offence upon the
present prosecution complaint dated 01.09.2023
was taken vide order dated 04.09.2023.
XI.Consequent to the aforesaid on 19.07.2024,
the petitioner filed a discharge application under
section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, /250 BNSS 2023 before the Special Judge
PMLA Court Ranchi, praying for discharge on the
ground that there was no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the petitioner under offences
of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section
4 of the Act of 2002.
XII.The learned Special Judge vide order dated
25.01.2025 has dismissed the said discharge
2025:JHHC:34679
application against which the present application
has been filed.
XIII.It requires to refer herein that consequent to
dismissal of the said application of discharge, the
charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has already been
framed against the petitioner on 04.02.2025.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner:
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that the learned Special Judge, PML Act,
Ranchi has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
not produced material which would show that the
petitioner has in any manner dealt with ―proceeds of
crime‖.
7. The learned Special Judge has also failed to appreciate
that the petitioner cannot be said to even remotely be
associated with the scheduled offence as mentioned in the
ECIR as he is neither involved in any form of forgery or
even has knowledge of the documents that were allegedly
forged or manipulated.
8. The petitioner has been prosecuted on the basis of
assumptions and surmises, and the officials of the
Investigating Agency has totally overlooked the principle
that there must 'reason to believe' rather than mere
2025:JHHC:34679
assumptions that the offences alleged against the petitioner
have actually been committed by him.
9. It has further been submitted that from the records it is
evident that there is no cogent material to show the
petitioner's involvement in forgery or manipulation of
records and the case of the prosecution is also not
supported with any material to show that the petitioner was
aware that the deed of 1948 was forged.
10. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate
that the petitioner had no involvement in forgery or
manipulation of land records. Further, it has been well
recorded that the complainant of the Complaint case no.
3111 of 2021 was frivolously exerting claim on the subject
land thus nothing survived in relation to the predicate
offence on the basis of which the ECIR was recorded.
11. The learned Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi has
erred in not considering that a civil suit with respect to the
title of the subject land is pending before Civil Court,
Ranchi during pendency of which provisions under PMLA
do not authorize the investigating officer to conclude,
decide and hold the true owner of the property or even
further presumption of the same being 'proceeds of crime'.
12. It has been submitted that as per the case of
Directorate of Enforcement, three landed properties namely
2025:JHHC:34679
(i).Pugru Land Property, (ii).Siram Land Property and
(iii).Cheshire Home Road Land Property are proceeds of
crime as the activity of the present petitioner in purchasing
these three properties in his own/company's name
allegedly amounts to money laundering but as a matter of
fact it cannot be said to be correct as the activity of the
present accused in the purchase of these three landed
properties are independent and separate activities having
no connection with each other.
13. It has been submitted that from the complaint it is
evident that the role of the present accused in purchasing
these three landed properties are independent and separate
from each other as Cheshire Home Land Property situated
at Plot No. 28, Khata No. 37. Village Gari, Cheshire Home
Road, Ranchi (Area-1 Acre, Deed Value - Rs. 1,80,00,000/-)
(Popularly known as Cheshire home road property) was
purchased on date 01.04.2021 in the name of M/s Challice
Real Estates LLP and M/s Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. and
Pugru Land property: - Property situated at Khata No. 93,
Plot по. 543, 544, 546 & 547 at Mouza Pugru, Anchal
Namkum (Area 9.30 acres, Deed Value Rs. 22,01,49,000/-)
(Popularly known as Pugru property) was purchased on
date 08.08.2019 by M/s Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. Whereas,
Siram Land property: Property situated at M.S Plot No. 908,
2025:JHHC:34679
851(P) & 910(P), Ward no. VI of Ranchi Municipality,
Ranchi (Present ward No. 14) (Area 5.88 Acre, Deed Value -
24,37,72.780/-) (Popularly known as Siram property) was
purchased on date 07.02.2018 by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal
and his wife Mrs. Anushree Agarwal.
14. Submission has been made that neither of the
above-mentioned properties namely Chesire Home Road
Property, Pugru Property, and Siram Property is proceed of
crime and further the present accused has purchased the
above-mentioned properties independently and separately
from each other in most bona fide manner and his office
had taken all due diligence while entering into the
transactions of purchase of these three properties.
15. It has been submitted that the present accused
petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, being a businessman
also deals in immovable properties and has an established
system/framework under which he operates. As a matter of
routine, as and when he wishes to purchase any property,
his office takes all due diligence and after being satisfied,
puts up the proposal to him and only upon his satisfaction
of the status of the property and its commercial value, he
takes a final decision. This process is adopted by them as a
matter of routine procedure, to be followed in all cases
involving the sale/purchase of property and the same has
2025:JHHC:34679
been duly explained by the present accused to the
investigating agency and all the documentary evidence were
also placed before the agency showing that the said three
properties were neither proceeds of crime in terms of
Section 2(u) of PMLA nor are involved in Money Laundering
but the complainant has amalgamated three separate
activities in the same complaint, which is contrary to the
provisions of Cr.P.C as also to the provisions of PMLA.
16. It has been submitted that petitioner Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal had purchased Cheshire Home land property
through a registered sale deed no. 2784 and 2483 on
01.04.2021 in the name of his Company, namely, M/s
Adarsh Height Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chalice Real Estate
Private Ltd., respectively, and is having all the documents
pertaining to title and ownership of the land. It has been
submitted that the said property was handled in most bona
fide manner and there is no material collected by the
Agency during the investigation of the case to treat his
property as "proceed of crime". That at the time of execution
of sale deeds, the entire consideration amount for the
purchase of the land of Cheshire Home was given to Punit
Bhargava and the payment made to Punit Bhargava is also
reflected in the Bank Statement of both the Companies,
namely, M/s Adarsh Height Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chalice Ltd.
2025:JHHC:34679
17. Further submission has been made that there is no
evidence in the entire prosecution complaint to prima facie
establish the allegation that the present accused had any
knowledge about the said forgery with deed no. 184/1948
and absence of knowledge is further substantiated by the
fact that Punit Bhargava during interaction in the office of
the petitioner did not appear suspicious and had himself
given adequate explanation that he wanted to sale the
property due to Covid Pandemic and wanted to go back to
his home town in Bihar.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that forgery in the deed no.184/1948 at Kolkata
could not have been detected by the petitioner or his
employee in due diligence as required to be carried out by
any buyer and the petitioner had purchased above property
above the circle rate with no cash transaction. The entire
sale consideration of Rs.1.80 Crore was paid through
banking channels from the legal income of the respective
companies and all such transactions have also been
reflected in the audited balance sheet and account books of
the companies.
19. So far as allegation of forgery committed in deed is
concerned, Bharat Prasad in his statement recorded u/s 50
of PML Act has given in details the manner in which the
2025:JHHC:34679
forgery was committed in various deeds at Kolkata as also
the name of the persons involved in committing the act of
forgery but he has not taken the name of this petitioner as
being involved in the act of forgery in any manner.
20. So far property of Cheshire Home is concerned, it
has been submitted that the dispute with respect to title
and possession of the property is pending for adjudication
in O.S. No.167 of 2021 filed by Umesh Gope and in absence
of final adjudication of the Court of competent jurisdiction,
provisions of PML Act do not authorize the Investigating
Officer to conclude, decide and hold the true owner of the
property and hence, the entire allegations made in the
prosecution complaint pertaining to Cheshire Home land
Property is premature and based on assumption and
presumption of facts, which fall within the domain of Civil
Court.
21. So far property in question at Pugru and Siram is
concerned, it has been argued that there is no FIR
registered by the Police for any schedule offence till date
and in the absence of FIR/Police Investigation, the
investigation of ED is premature and illegal in the eyes of
law.
22. In support of such submission, reliance has been
placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
2025:JHHC:34679
the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vrs.
Union of India and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 929 and
Prakash Industries Vrs. Union of India 2023 SCC
Online Delhi 336.
23. Therefore, submission has been made that the
schedule offence referred to in complaint dated 01.09.2023
in ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 is not directly
or indirectly connected with Purgu Land and Siram Land
properties and hence, no investigation under PML Act could
have been launched making FIR No. 399/2022 dated
08.09.2022 as the basis for collecting evidence alleging
these properties to be proceeds of crime.
24. Further submission has been made that the present
accused purchased the land at Pugru vide Registered Sale
Deed No. 5629 dated 08.08.2019 from one Ashish Kumar
Ganguly and the land, namely, Siram Property from Sanjay
Ghosh and Mahua Mitra vide registered sale deed No.
1011/922 dated 07.02.2018 and the entire consideration
amounts for purchasing these two properties were paid by
the petitioner through the legal source of income and
therefore, these two properties cannot be treated to be
"proceed of crime".
25. It has been submitted that since there is no FIR
under any schedule offence for these two properties, the
2025:JHHC:34679
entire allegations made by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in
its complaint dated 01.09.2023 is contrary to the provision
of PML Act and the authorities under 2002 Act cannot
prosecute any person on a notional basis or on the
assumption that the schedule offence has been committed
unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional Police
and/or pending inquiry/ trial including by way of criminal
complaint before the competent forum. The Investigating
Agency has finally conducted investigation on notional
basis merely on assumption that a schedule offence has
been committed qua Purgu Property and Siram land
property and has also filed a complaint u/s 45 of PML Act
on the basis of his entire investigation conducted in the
absence of any schedule offence, which is not permissible
in the eye of law.
26. It has been submitted that apart from it, from the
perusal of prosecution complaint, it would transpire that
Directorate Enforcement is heavily relying upon the
statements made by the applicant as also by other co-
accused recorded in terms of Section 50 of the Prevention
of Money Laundry Act, 2002 and in this context, it is stated
and submitted that it is by now well settled that the
statements of the accused recorded in terms of Sec. 50 of
2025:JHHC:34679
PML Act would be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India as also by Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
27. It has been submitted that once the materials
purportedly emanating from the statement made u/s 50 of
PML Act are taken out from the prosecution complaint and
the Police papers supplied to the applicant, it would be
seen that there is not a single material barring cogent
evidence as against applicant. It would not be sufficient
even prima-facie to give rise to a triable case. It is further
submitted that the prosecution has failed to indicate that
the petitioner had any role in committing the offence of
forgery committed at the Office of Registrar Assurance of
Kolkata and has also failed to show even remotely that this
petitioner had any menserea for acquiring the lands in
question on the strength of forged document and therefore,
this petitioner has not committed any offence u/s 3
punishable u/s 4 of PML Act.
28. It is fairly well settled that mens rea, unless
expressly excluded will have to be read into a penal statute.
It has also been contended that the case of the prosecution
rests upon the statements of the witnesses and accused
persons which has been made under section 50 of the
PMLA without any independent corroboration of the said
statements through independent sources.
2025:JHHC:34679
29. It has been submitted that in order to make out an
offence under the provisions of the PML Act, 2002, it is
obligatory upon the prosecution to produce material which
should show that an accused has in any manner dealt with
'proceeds of crime' generated from the commission of the
scheduled offence and in absence of any material showing
that the petitioner had illegally gained property as a result
of any criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence the
order rejecting discharge application dated 25.01.2025 is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
30. It has been contended that the learned Court below
has failed to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of
evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities
appearing in the case at the time of considering the
discharge application and there is no cogent far less any
legally admissible evidence against the petitioner and even
if the entire evidence is taken on its face value the same
does not give rise to even suspicion far less grave suspicion
to proceed against the petitioner.
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case
where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent ED:
2025:JHHC:34679
32. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED has
submitted that the prosecution complaint dated
01.09.2023 filed against the Petitioner and other co-
accused persons is backed by cogent evidence gathered
during the course of investigation and not solely based on
statements of the Petitioner as well as his accomplices.
Further, there are ample pieces of evidence that prove that
the Petitioner is involved in the offence of money
laundering, which are further corroborated by the
statements of witnesses and accused persons of the instant
case. Hence, the averments that the Petitioner has no
connection with illegal activities of the instant case are
unfounded and liable to be dismissed.
33. It is further submitted that the learned Special
Court, PMLA, Ranchi after considering the active role of the
petitioner in illegally acquiring landed property
admeasuring 1 acre situated at Cheshire Home Road,
Ranchi, has rightly dismissed the discharge application
vide order dated 25.01.2025, hence, the averments of the
petitioner are baseless and liable to be rejected.
34. Further submission has been made that learned
Special Judge, after meticulously considering the material
on record, has passed a detailed and reasoned order on
25.01.2025 by which the discharge petition filed by the
2025:JHHC:34679
petitioner has been dismissed and consequently charge has
been framed on 04.02.2025.
35. It has further been submitted that the learned
special court has come to the considered finding that
sufficient materials exist to frame charges against the
petitioner along with co-accused persons. The learned
special judge specifically recorded that the petitioner was
knowingly a party to the syndicate and fraudulently
acquiring these government/defence properties at Cheshire
Home Road, Ranchi; Mouza Siram and Mouza Pugru,
Namkuk Anchal Ranchi.
36. It has been submitted that the petitioner paid Rs.
1,78,20,000/-to the accused Punit Bhargava in favour of
his firm Shiva Fabcons in account No. 52580200000085 of
Bank of Baroda, out of which an amount of
Rs.1,01,57,400/- was transferred to the bank account of
Jamini Enterprises, a firm whose beneficial owner is the co-
accused Prem Prakash.
37. Further, the petitioner, acquired the said one-acre
property by hatching a conspiracy and initially making
Punit Bhargava the owner of the land admeasuring 1 acre
at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi, which is a government
land. Later, this land was acquired by the petitioner,
2025:JHHC:34679
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal who is the ultimate beneficiary of
the said land.
38. It is humbly submitted that the offence of money
laundering is a separate and independent offence as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v.UOI, 2022 SCC Online 729. Hence, it is not
necessary that the accused of a predicate offence can only
commit offence of money laundering, the set of accused in
offence under PMLA could be different and which depends
on activity or process such person is involved in pertaining
to proceeds of crime.
39. It is submitted that the petitioner's attempt to
rely upon the fact that he was not arrayed as an
accused in the earlier complaint is misconceived, as
the present case arises out of a distinct scheduled
offence under FIR No. 399/2022. Further, the narration
of FIR No. 399 of 2022 registered at Sadar Police
Station, Ranchi is substantially correct as a matter of
record. However, the plea that the dispute is of civil
nature is misleading. The Final Form submitted in the
FIR has no consequence on the independent
proceedings under PMLA. Further it is submitted that
further investigation in FIR No. 399/2022 is still
pending, and hence the petitioner cannot take shelter
2025:JHHC:34679
under plea of civil dispute. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the correct position stands established from the
Prosecution Complaint and investigation records.
Therefore, the attempt of the petitioner to dilute his
role or project the matter as civil in nature is wholly
misconceived and untenable.
40. Further, the plea of absence of proceeds of crime is
wholly untenable in view of the categorical findings
recorded in the Prosecution Complaint dated 01.09.2023
and the cognizance order dated 04.09.2023, wherein
sufficient material was found against the petitioner
regarding his role in acquiring, possessing and projecting
as untainted the properties identified as proceeds of crime.
The allegation of absence of mens rea is also baseless, as
knowledge of the tainted origin of the assets stands
established from the chain of transactions revealed during
investigation, including the acquisition of Cheshire Home
Road property, Pugru property, and Siram property.]
41. It is submitted that the contention that the
acquisitions of the three properties were independent and
unconnected is not fit to be accepted. It is further
submitted that this is a deliberate misrepresentation aimed
at breaking the clear chain of the money laundering
conspiracy. On the contrary, the investigation reveals a
2025:JHHC:34679
clear pattern that connects all three transactions as part of
a single, continuous scheme. The petitioner, through
corporate entities he controls, acquired these properties
with proceeds of crime generated from scheduled offences
and actively worked to project them as untainted.
42. The attempt to portray the said property as isolated
events simply because they were purchased on different
dates is misleading; this is a classic layering technique
used to disguise an ongoing money laundering operation.
The evidence establishes the petitioner's active and
conscious role in acquiring and concealing these tainted
assets, which goes far beyond a simple purchase and
squarely attracts Section 3 of the PMLA. This argument was
already considered and negated by the learned Special
Judge while framing charges. As all three properties are
part of the same laundering scheme, they are proceeds of
crime as defined under the PMLA and are liable to
confiscation.
43. The record demonstrates that the petitioner
purchased the immovable properties in question, including
the Cheshire Home Road property, the Pugru property, and
the Siram property, which have been identified as proceeds
of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The
investigation has clearly revealed that these acquisitions
2025:JHHC:34679
were funded through tainted money and are integrally
connected with laundering activities.
44. Further, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the
judgments in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary Ors. Vs Union of
India & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and Prakash
Industries vs Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 336,
it is submitted that the reliance is wholly misplaced. These
judgments do not apply to a case where a clear nexus
between the scheduled offence and the laundered asset has
been established. In the present matter, the evidence
collected and statements recorded in relation to the Pugru
property are directly relevant and admissible, as they
pertain to the tracing and identification of proceeds of
crime. Hence, the petitioner's submissions are untenable
and devoid of merit.
45. It is further submitted that Section 3 of the PMLA,
clearly states that whosoever directly or indirectly attempts
to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is
actually involved in any process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime including its concealment,
possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it
as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-
laundering.
2025:JHHC:34679
46. Hence, in light of the above, the case of the
Petitioner is based upon cogent evidence to show his
involvement, and then during the stage of considering of
discharge application, only a prima facie case is to be
considered.
47. The learned Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi after
considering the active role of the petitioner in illegally
acquiring landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at
Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi, which is backed by cogent
evidences relied upon in the prosecution Complaint dated
01.09.2023, rejected the discharge application of the
petitioner which is just and proper. Hence, the averments
of the petitioner are baseless and liable to be rejected.
48. It is stated that in Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate
of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 2779/20223, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary
that the accused for the offence of money laundering to be
made accused of schedule offences and it is also pertinent
to mention that the offence of money laundering is an
independent offence. It is not necessary that the offender of
money laundering necessarily need to be made accused or
charge-sheeted in predicate offence. The offence of money
laundering is a separate and independent offence. Hence,
the averments of the petitioner are baseless.
2025:JHHC:34679
49. It is submitted that the question of whether the
accused being guilty or non-guilty is a matter of trial, and
the same is to be seen through the evidence produced on
record before the Special Court PMLA. While arresting an
accused, the primary assumption that is to be made is
whether there are sufficient reasons to believe that the
person is guilty of the offence under section 3 punishable
under Section 4 of PMLA 2002. Therefore, in the light of
facts and circumstances of the present case, there were
cogent reasons to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of
offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of
PMLA. The averments of the petitioner appear to be an
attempt to portray himself as innocent and dissociate
himself from his co-accused in order to aloof himself from
the illegal activities for facilitating the illegal acquisition of
government land. Thus, the averments of the petitioner are
unfounded and liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed
upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh v.
State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216 held that Confessional
statements can be considered if they implicate the maker
substantially in the same extent as the other accused
against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration.
Thus, the learned Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi has
rightfully rejected the petitioner's discharge application vide
2025:JHHC:34679
order dated 25.01.2025 and consequently the charges
under relevant Section have been framed against the
petitioner.
50. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-ED, on the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a
fit case where the impugned order to be interfered with.
Analysis:
51. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and has also gone through the finding recorded by
the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the
case diary.
52. It is evident from record that an ECIR bearing no.
RNZO / 10 / 2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 and
investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR
being Sadar P.S. Case no. 399 of 2022 registered for
offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506,
341, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR being
Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022 was registered on the
directions of the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed vide
order dated 28.06.2022. A complaint case was filed by
Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad,
Punit Bhargav and others for fraudulently acquiring one
2025:JHHC:34679
acre of land situated at Cheshire Home Road, Plot No 28,
Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
53. It has been alleged that Rajesh Rai illegally and
fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the name of
Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad on the strength of the
said Power of Attorney they prepared a forged sale deed and
sold the above-mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1
acre to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs.1,78,55,800/-
and Puneet Bhargav further sold the said land to Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal (present petitioner) through two Sale Deeds
for a total amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Two Sale deeds
dated 01.04.2021 for an amount Rs.1,02,60,000/- and
Rs.77,40,000/-).
54. Further during the investigation, Surveys were
conducted on 09.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 at the Circle
Office, Bargain, Ranchi, and office of Registrar of
assurances Kolkata respectively and original register
II/volumes containing the above entry were inspected
falsification of the original records were identified and the
custody of original registers were taken. After obtaining new
permission the original registers were sent for examination
by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science,
Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar which
2025:JHHC:34679
confirmed the forgery and tampering in the above stated
registers.
55. Based on the above, the Directorate of Enforcement
registered ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR / RNZO / 10
/ 2023 dated 07.03.2023 and the Prosecution Complaint
was filed on 01.09.2023, by the Directorate of Enforcement
in which the petitioner was arrayed as accused no. 9 and
thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance of the
offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the
PML Act, 2002 against the petitioner and other accused
persons.
56. In the said prosecution complaint, the role of
petitioner has been mentioned, for ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid prosecution complaint
is being quoted as under:
"8.Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) and (3)
of PMLA:
During investigation, statement of several persons
(including witnesses and accused person) has been
recorded under section 50 of PMLA, wherein it reveals that
the accused persons are knowingly involved and are a
party in the activities relating to the acquisition,
possession, use, concealment, and projection of the
proceeds of crime as untainted properties which are the
ingredients of the offence of Money Laundering Activities
as defined under section 8 of PMLA, 2002. The brief of
such statements recorded under section 50 of PMLA, is as
follows-
2025:JHHC:34679
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal -
In his statement dated 09.11.2022 (Recorded
under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No 15) he was
asked about the reasons for frivolously showing payment
of Rs. 11.85 crores in deed dated 07.02.2018 between him
and Mahua Mitra and Sanjay Ghosh (HUF) through its
karta Sanjay Ghosh and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and
Anushree Agarwal for purchasing a property acquired by
army, situated at M.S Plot no. 851, and M.S Plot no. 908 of
Ranchi Municipality at ward no. 6 admeasuring 5.5 acres
with an old dilapidated house known as 'Dilkosh House',
however, he gave evasive replies and was reluctant to
furnish true information. He further sought time to fumish
reply on the above. Investigation had revealed that Bishnu
Agarwal acquired the army property by showing
consideration amount 15 crores, although, the market
value of the property/consideration was declared as Rs.
24,37,72,780/- in the deed dated 07.02.2018. However,
he paid only Rs. 3 crores and falsely declared rest of the
payments to be paid through cheques.
In his statement dated 11.11.2022 recorded under
section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No 16) he was again
asked to furnish reasons for the false declaration that
postdated cheques were given to the sellers which were to
be encashed of Rs. 11.85 crores in which he again gave
misleading answers and stated after possession. His
statement further reveals that he had knowledge about the
possession of defence on the said land but instead of this,
he did not sought any clarification from defence or army
about its true ownership and went ahead to acquire the
said land in a deceitful manner.
From his statement dated 21.06.2023 (RUD No 17)
recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, it reveals that
he acquired a land admeasuring to 9.3 acres situated at
Plot no. 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, at Khata no. 93, Mauja
Pugru, Ranchi in the year 2019 from one Ashish Kumar
2025:JHHC:34679
Ganguly (since deceased) and sixteen another parties. It
was a disputed land having ongoing Itigations between
the said Ashish Kumar Ganguly as one party and sixteen
other claimants as second party. It again reveals from his
statement that in this case too, he gave only Rs. 2.5 crores
to Ashish Kumar Ganguly out of the consideration amount
of Rs. 5 crores but frivolously declared in the registered
deed that full payments were made to the sellers.
Investigation has revealed that this was a Khasmahal
land which was taken on lease Initially for thirty years by
one W.S Hitchcock who was ex-IPS officer, then residing in
Ranchi.
During course of searches, the mobile phone of
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was seized on 04.11.2022. During
the scrutiny of the data extracted from the said mobile
phone, several conversations between him and Chhavi
Ranjan surfaced which also revealed about the proximity
between these two persons. Several chats in relation to a
land admeasuring to 9.3 acres situated at Plot no, 543,
544, 545, 546, 547, at Khata no. 93, Mauja Pugru, Ranchi
was also Identified. This land was a Khasmahal land and
was acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing its
nature, and Influencing Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
Chhavi Ranjan who overlooked the records, misused his
position and extended favours to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal.
During his statement under section 50 of PMLA, 2002
recorded on 31.07.2023, he was confronted with the said
conversations wherein he tried to conceal the conversation
with Chhavi Ranjan on the above matter. During his
statement ts by stating that he did not remember whether
he had done any dated 31.07.2023, (RUD No 18) he was
also confronted with the draft letters he had forwarded to
Chhavi Ranjan on which were subsequently signed and
reverted back by Chhavi Ranjan over WhatsApp after
minor modifications. On this, he gave evasive and
unsatisfactory replies in order to conceal his association
with the accused person Chhavi Ranjan.
2025:JHHC:34679
He was arrested on 31.07.2023 and was
subsequently remanded to the custody of the Directorate of
Enforcement after being produced before this Hon'ble Court
on 01.08.2023. In his statement dated 06.08.2023, (RUD
No 201, he stated that he is a director of about 28
companies. He further stated that he used to have
telephonic conversations with the then D.C, Chhavi
Ranjan. He further stated that he had also conversations
with Prem Prakash. His statement dated 06.08.2023 also
reveals about his various companies and several persons
who have been employed as directors of his companies.
His statement dated 09.08.2023 (RUD No 21) reveals his
knowledge about the acquisition of Siram property
admeasuring 5.88 acres by the defence through a
notification followed by publication of information about its
acquisition in Gazette of Bihar dated 03.08.1949. His
statement dated 09.08.2023 also reveals that he had
WhatsApp chats with several persons on this issue and in
the said chats, the copy of the Gazette of Bihar dated
03.08.1949, documents pertaining to the acquisition of the
Siram land situated at M.S Plot no. 851, and M.S Plot no.
908 of Ranchi Municipality at ward no. 6, Siram, Ranchi
were also shared by chats dated 26.09.2021. Yet, the
accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal kept concealing this fact
in order to acquire and possess the property as stated
above.
He was further asked about the role of his wife as
Director of his companies on which he stated that he made
her director as she is her wife and further due to the
requirement of the director in a company.
Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA
9.1 The investigations under the provisions of PMLA, 2002
in FIR no. 399/2022 dated 08.09.2022 revealed that there
is organized group of persons who are habitually involved
in making fake deeds and falsifying original land records
at Circle Offices and Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and
2025:JHHC:34679
with the help of said fake deeds, acquire and dispose
properties in fraudulent manner.
9.2 Investigation reveals that such forgery is widespread
and certain government officials are part of the said
conspiracy. Various influential persons like Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal, Prem Prakash and others in connivance with
senior government officials like Chhavi Ranjan are
involved in acquisition of landed properties in Ranchi.
9.3 Investigation has revealed that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal
has been assisted by Prem Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan and
others in acquiring proceeds ofcrime in the form of landed
properties the details of which are given below-
9.4 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai,
illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the
name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the
strength of the said power of attorney, they prepared a
forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of
land measuring 1 acres to Punit Bhargav for an amount of
Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. Punit Bhargava further sold the said
land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for
the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. (Vide two sale
deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs.
1,02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,40,000/-).
9.5 Thus, the FIR stated that the land admeasuring 1
acres, situated at Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar,
Ranchi was acquired in a fraudulent manner by the above
persons who indulged in fabricating documents and
forging records, on the basis of which a power of attorney
was fraudulently executed and subsequently the land was
transferred to Punit Bhargava, who Immediately sold this
land to Bishnu Agarwal, a businessman having interests
in several avenues including real estate business.
9.6 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in connivance
with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain,Afshar Ali,
2025:JHHC:34679
Imtiaz Ahmed and others prepared one forged deed of
1948 was prepared by the accused persons and on the
basis of that a power of attorney was given in favour of
Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice
namely Lakhan Singh became the confirming party in the
deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in
favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no.
2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 112
from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO, Ranchi.
9.7 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both dated
01.04.2021, registered as document no.
2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316
from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for
an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and document no.
2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316
from page no. 261 to 404 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for
an amount of Rs. 77,40,000).
9.8 Investigation further reveals that though the
consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed
and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is shown as Rs.
1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Rs. 25 lacs have
been paid from the Bank of Baroda account of Shiva
Fabcons, (account no.52580200000085) one of
theproprietorship firms of Punit Bhargava into the SBI
Account no. 31180122501 of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021.
Further Investigation reveals that out of the said amount of
Rs. 25 lacs, an amount of Rs. 18 lacs were immediately
transferred to the bank account of Green Traders, a
partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain
(one of the accused arrested by this office on 14.04.2023
and presently languishing in Judicial Custody).
9.9 During investigation, surveys were conducted on
09.02.2023 (RUD No. 06) at the Circle office, Bargai,
Ranchi and on 15.02.2023 (RUD No. 07) at the office of
2025:JHHC:34679
Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata under section
16 of PMLA, 2002 and the original register II/volumes,
containing the above entry were inspected and falsification
of the original records were identified in the above
documents. The custody of the original registers was taken
from the Circle Office as well as from the Registrar of
Assurances, Kolkata after the permission of Hon'ble PMIA
Court Ranchi under section 91 of Cr.PC. After obtaining
due permission, the said original register was sent for by
an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting
and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar. The Directorate of
Forensic Science has confirmed the forgery and tempering
in the above stated registers.
9.10 During further investigation, it revealed that the
accused persons namely Afshar All, Md. Saddam Hussain,
Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Chhavi Ranjan,
Prem Prakash, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh and Bharat
Prasad are habitual offenders and they are involved in
mass forgery. It is also established that Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal has acquired other lands in frivolous manner with
the help of government officials. 9.11 As stated above,
investigation has established that the property situated at
Khata no. 93, Plot no. 543, 544, 546 and 547, total area
9.30 acres acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a
government property (Khasmahal Land). And the said
property has been acquired by the accused Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal by influencing the government officials including
the Ex-DC Chhavi Ranjan who helped him by suppressing
and shelving all the official records and documents which
established that the above property acquired by Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal
Land). Further, this property has been in possession of
Nazarat Hussain & his families without any grounds and
has been in their occupation. Later, this land was taken
onlease by Ramchandra Mukherjee effective from the year
1985 and expired in the year 2014 after which, the lease
of the above-stated was not renewed in name of any
2025:JHHC:34679
person. However, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing
and suppressing the facts and by assistance of the
accused Chhavi Ranjan and others purchased this
Khasmahal land in illegal manner.
14 Specific Roles of the Accused persons in
commission of offence of Money laundering
14.9 Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, S/o Chiranjee Lal
Agarwal (Accused no. 9) - The accused person was a
knowingly a party with the accused persons namely
Afshar All Afsu Khan, Punit Bhargava Chhavi Ranjan
Prem Prakash and others in acquisition of proceeds crime
in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at
Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home
Road, Ranchi. The accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was
also knowingly a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan,
Ex D.C, Ranchi in acquiring property of the defence,
government of India situated at Mauja Siram, Plot no. 908,
851 and 910, Ranchi having total area 5.883 acres by
paying only 3 crores although the total consideration
amount in the registered deed was frivolously declared as
Rs. 15 crores. The accused person Bishnu Kumar Agarwal
also became a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan and
knowingly indulged in the process and activity connected
with acquisition of another government property
(Khasmahal land) situated at Plot no. 543, 544, 545 and
546, Mauja Pugru, Khata no. 93, Namkum Anchal, Ranchi
admeasuring 9.30 acres. In this case also, only an amount
of Rs. 2.45 crores were paid but, in the deed, a payment of
Rs. 5 crores were fraudulently mentioned to be paid to one
Ashish Chandra Ganguly (since deceased). In both cases,
the accused persons namely Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and
Chhavi Ranjan concealed facts and relevant documents
that established the above properties were government
properties. Thus, the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was
knowingly involved in the acquisition of the above three
2025:JHHC:34679
properties in fraudulent manners which were nothing but
proceeds of crime.
Hence, the accused person Bishnu Kumar Agarwal is
involved in the activities connected with the acquisition,
possession, concealment and use of the proceeds of crime
and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as
untainted property. Thus, the accused person Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal has committed the offence of money
laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and
is accordingly liable to punished under section 4 of PMLA,
2002.
57. Thus, it appears from the prosecution complaint
that the petitioner was knowingly a party with the accused
persons namely Afshar Ali, Afsu Khan, Punit Bhargava
Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash and others in acquisition of
proceeds of crime in the form of landed property
admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37,
Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. Further, the
present petitioner, namely, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was
also knowingly a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan, Ex
D.C., Ranchi in acquiring property of the defence,
government of India situated at Mauja Siram, Plot no. 908,
851 and 910, Ranchi having total area 5.883 acres by
paying only 3 crores although the total consideration
amount in the registered deed was frivolously declared as
Rs. 15 crores.
2025:JHHC:34679
58. It is revealed that the accused petitioner Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal also became a party with the accused
Chhavi Ranjan and knowingly indulged in the process and
activity connected with acquisition of another government
property (Khasmahal land) situated at Plot no. 543, 544,
545 and 546, Mauja Pugru, Khata no. 93, Namkum Anchal,
Ranchi admeasuring 9.30 acres. In this case also, only an
amount of Rs. 2.45 crores were paid but, in the deed, a
payment of Rs. 5 crores were fraudulently mentioned to be
paid to one Ashish Chandra Ganguly (since deceased).
59. In both cases, from the prosecution complaint it
appears that the present petitioner and other co-accused
Chhavi Ranjan concealed the facts and relevant documents
that established the above properties were government
properties.
60. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs of the
prosecution complaint it has come on record that the
present petitioner was knowingly involved in the acquisition
of the above three properties in fraudulent manners which
were nothing but proceeds of crime.
61. The main thrust of the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the contention of Directorate
of Enforcement that three landed properties namely (i)
Pugru Land Property, (ii) Siram Land Property and (iii)
2025:JHHC:34679
Cheshire Home Road Land Property are proceeds of crime
but as a matter of fact it cannot be said to be correct as the
activity of the present petitioner in the purchase of these
three landed properties are independent and separate
activities having no connection with each other.
62. Per Contra the learned counsel for ED vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that, at
the stage of considering the discharge application only
prima-facie material has to be ascertained and there is
sufficient prima-facie clinching material was available on
the record, as such discharge application has been
dismissed and consequent thereto charge has been framed
against the petitioner.
63. In the background of the factual aspect and
contention of the learned counsel for the parties noted
hereinabove, the issues which require consideration are--
(i) Whether the order dated 25.01.2025 by which
application for discharge has been rejected can be said
to suffer from an error?
(ii) Whether on the basis of the evidence which has been
collected in course of investigation, prima facie case
against the petitioner is made out or not?
64. Since both the issues are interlinked as such, they
are taken up together.
2025:JHHC:34679
65. This Court, before appreciating the argument
advanced on behalf of the parties deems it fit and proper to
discuss herein some of the provisions of law as contained
under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent.
66. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent
need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for
preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of
crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including
vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of
agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for
combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the
persons indulging in the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime.
67. It is, thus, evident that Act 2002 was enacted in
order to answer the urgent requirement to have a
comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-
laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication
and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering
and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
68. It needs to refer herein the definition of ―proceeds of
crime‖ as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002
which reads as under:
2025:JHHC:34679
―2 (1) (u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived
or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or
the value of any such property 3[or where such property is
taken or held outside the country, then the property
equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad];
[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only
derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also
any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or
obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the
scheduled offence;]"
69. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that
―proceeds of crime‖ means any property derived or
obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value
of any such property or where such property is taken or
held outside the country, then the property equivalent in
value held within the country or abroad.
70. In the explanation it has been referred that for
removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of
crime" include property not only derived or obtained from
the scheduled offence but also any property which may
directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of
any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The
aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book
by way of Act 23 of 2019.
71. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving
explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification
2025:JHHC:34679
to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision
of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly
or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such
property or where such property is taken or held outside
the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime
has been given broader implication by including property
not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but
also any property which may directly or indirectly be
derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity
relatable to the scheduled offence.
72. The ―property‖ has been defined under Section
2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every
description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or
immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and
instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property
or assets, wherever located.
73. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. The ―scheduled offence‖ has been
defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:
―2(y) "scheduled offence" means-- (i) the offences specified
under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified
under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in
such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the
offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."
2025:JHHC:34679
74. It is evident that the ―scheduled offence‖ means the
offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the
offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total
value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or
more; or the offences specified under Part C of the
Schedule.
75. The offence of money laundering has been defined
under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly
or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or
knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process
or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including
its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and
projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be
guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.-- For
the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,-- (i) a
person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if
such person is found to have directly or indirectly
attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly
is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the
following processes or activities connected with proceeds
of crime, namely:-- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted
property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any
manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected
with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and
continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly
enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or
possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in
any manner whatsoever.]"
76. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that
―offence of money-laundering‖ means whosoever directly or
2025:JHHC:34679
indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or
knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including
its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and
projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be
guilty of offence of money-laundering.
77. It is further evident that the process or activity
connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity
and continues till such time a person is directly or
indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment
or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in
any manner whatsoever.
78. The punishment for money laundering has been
provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
79. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith
interpretation of the definition of ―proceeds of crime‖ has
been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench
comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has decided the issue by taking into consideration
the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
2025:JHHC:34679
80. It is evident that the purposes and objects of the
2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to
punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to
provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is
also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which
are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any
manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding
relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002
Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies,
financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain
records of the transactions, to furnish information of such
transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter
IV of the 2002 Act.
81. The predicate offence has been considered in the
aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration
the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under
the definition of the ―proceeds of crime‖ as contained under
Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been
clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the
"proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or
obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property
which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a
result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence, meaning thereby, the words ―any property which
2025:JHHC:34679
may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result
of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence‖
will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.
82. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of
India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph 284, it has
been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to
prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if
it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in
writing that the person is in possession of ―proceeds of
crime‖. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible
and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the
person concerned in any process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken
forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of
crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government,
such process initiated would be a standalone process.
83. Now, after having discussed the judgments passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of various
provisions of the Act, 2002, this Court, is proceeding to
discuss the principle of discharge.
84. Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (‗BNSS' for brevity) provides for discharge in
sessions cases. It reads as follows:
2025:JHHC:34679
"250.Discharge (1) The accused may prefer an
application for discharge within a period of sixty days
from the date of commitment of the case under section
232 (BNSS). (2) If, upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that
there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for doing so."
85. Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure (‗CrPC'
for brevity) contemplates discharge by the Court of Session.
The trial Judge is required to discharge the accused if the
Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. Section 250(2) BNSS
corresponds to section 227 CrPC. Section 250(1) BNSS
stipulates a time limit of 60 days from the date of committal
of the case within which an application for discharge
should be filed by the accused.
86. Section 239 CrPC provides for discharge of accused
in warrant cases instituted upon a police report. The power
under section 239 Cr.P.C. is exercisable when Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.
Section 262(2) BNSS is similar to section 239 CrPC but
section 262 BNSS provides an opportunity to the learned
Magistrate to examine the accused either physically or
through audio - video electronic means. Section 262(1)
BNSS stipulates a time limit of 60 days from the date of
2025:JHHC:34679
supply of documents under section 230 BNSS within which
an application should for discharge should be filed by the
accused.
87. Section 245 Cr.P.C. deals with warrant cases
instituted otherwise than on a police report. Section 245
CrPC corresponds t.o section 268 of BNSS. The power
under section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. is exercisable when the
Magistrate considers that no case against the accused has
been made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his
conviction. The Magistrate has the power of discharging the
accused at any previous stage of the case under section
245 (2) Cr.P.C. Sections 227 and 239 Cr.P.C. provide for
discharge before the recording of evidence on the basis of
the police report, the documents sent along with it and
examination of the accused after giving an opportunity to
the parties to be heard. But the stage of discharge under
section 245 Cr.P.C., on the other hand, is reached only
after the evidence referred in section 244 is taken. Despite
the difference in the language of the provisions of sections
227, 239 and 245 Cr.P.C. and whichever provision may be
applicable, the Court is required to see, at the time of
framing of charge, that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding against the accused. The main intention of
granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as
2025:JHHC:34679
envisaged under sections 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C. is to assist
the Court to determine whether it is required to proceed to
conduct the trial.
88. The issue of discharge was the subject matter
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Tamilnadu, by Inspector of Police in Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709,
wherein at paragraphs no. 29, 32.4, 33 and 34 the Hon'ble
Apex Court has been observed as under:--
"29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
submissions and the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit
Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for discharge, the court
cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a
post office and may sift evidence in order to find out
whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as
to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of
consideration of an application for discharge, the court
has to proceed with an assumption that the materials
brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate
the said materials and documents with a view to find out
whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face
value disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative
value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is
not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the
materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground
for presuming that the offence has been committed and not
whether a ground for convicting the accused has been
made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence on the basis of
2025:JHHC:34679
the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame
the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to
the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence.
The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.
32.4. While passing the impugned orders [N. Suresh
Rajan v. Inspector of Police, Criminal Revision Case (MD)
No. 528 22 of 2009, order dated 10-12-2010 (Mad)],
[State v. K. Ponmudi, (2007) 1 Mad LJ (Cri) 100], the
court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of finding
out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused but whether that would warrant a
conviction. We are of the opinion that this was not the
stage where the court should have appraised the evidence
and discharged the accused as if it was passing an order
of acquittal. Further, defect in investigation itself cannot be
a ground for discharge. In our opinion, the order
impugned [N. Suresh Rajan v. Inspector of
Police, Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 528 of 2009, order
dated 10-12-2010 (Mad)] suffers from grave error and calls
for rectification.
33. Any observation made by us in this judgment is for the
purpose of disposal of these appeals and shall have no
bearing on the trial. The surviving respondents are
directed to appear before the respective courts on 3-2-
2014. The Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage
of charge in accordance with law and make endeavour to
dispose of the same expeditiously.
34. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the
order of discharge with the aforesaid observations.
89. It has been further held in the case of Asim
Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC
148, that mini trial is not expected by the trial court for the
purpose of marshalling the evidence on record at the time
2025:JHHC:34679
of framing of charge. It has been held at paragraph no. 18
of the said judgment as under:--
"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid
down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while
considering the question of framing charge under
Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to
Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out; where the
material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the
charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of
them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will
be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while
examining the discharge application filed under
Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to
exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a
case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in
such proceedings, the court is not supposed to hold a mini
trial by marshalling the evidence on record."
90. It is further settled position of law that defence on
merit is not to be considered at the time of stage of framing
of charge and that cannot be a ground of discharge. A
reference may be made to the judgment as rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok
Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191. For ready reference
Paragraph no. 11 of the said judgment are quoted below:--
"11. While considering the legality of the impugned
judgment [Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of
2025:JHHC:34679
Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3468] and order passed
by the High Court, the law on the subject and few
decisions of this Court are required to be referred to.
11.1. In P. Vijayan [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010)
2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], this Court had an
occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC What is required
to be considered at the time of framing of the charge
and/or considering the discharge application has been
considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed
and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has
merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency
of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the
evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if
the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under
Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused.
It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind
to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a
case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is
not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons
of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence
and probabilities which is really the function of the court,
after the trial starts.
11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in M.R. Hiremath
[State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC
515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380],
one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench
has observed and held in para 25 as under : (SCC p. 526)
"25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017 SCC
OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact
that the trial court was dealing with an application
for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC.
The parameters which govern the exercise of this
2025:JHHC:34679
jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of
this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage
of considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has
been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate the material in order to determine whether the
facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value,
disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to
constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan
[State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC
709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721],
adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court
held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)
„29. ... At this stage, probative value of the materials has
to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into
the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant
a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is
whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence
has been committed and not whether a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out. To put it
differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have
committed the offence on the basis of the materials on
record on its probative value, it can frame the charge;
though for conviction, the court has to come to the
conclusion that the accused has committed the offence.
The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.‟"
91. Further it is pertinent to mention here that power
to discharge an accused was designed to prevent
harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or
the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be
achieved is reasonably clear in the section itself. The power
has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge who brings to
bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials.
2025:JHHC:34679
Besides, he has the assistance of counsel for the accused
and Public Prosecutor. He is required to hear both sides
before framing any charge against the accused or for
discharging him. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the
parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support
thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course.
Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the
rule unless there is a glaring injustice which stares the
court in the face. The opinion on any matter may differ
depending upon the person who views it. There may be as
many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts
but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial.
It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to
proceed. Reference in this regard may be taken from the
judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Stree
Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal
Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715.
92. Further, the difference between the approach with
which the Court should examine the matter in the
discharge has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC
460, in the following words:--
"17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by
the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless
the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code.
2025:JHHC:34679
Under both these provisions, the court is required to
consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties, may
either discharge the accused or where it appears to the
court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the
charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section
exists, then the court would be right in presuming that
there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame
the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a
presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in
relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and
the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for
exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a
prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the
language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code.
Section 227 is the expression of a definite opinion and
judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus,
to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court
should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty
of committing an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.
30. We have already noticed that the legislature in its
wisdom has used the expression "there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence".
This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the
ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations
made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of
the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash
the charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC
659 referred to the meaning of the word "presume" while
relying upon Black's Law Dictionary. It was defined to
mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence"; "to
take as proved until evidence to the contrary is
forthcoming". In other words, the truth of the matter has to
come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the
witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, the
2025:JHHC:34679
incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused
in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the accused
is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only
upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with
the court forming its final opinion and delivering its
judgment. Merely because there was a civil transaction
between the parties would not by itself alter the status of
the allegations constituting the criminal offence.
93. Thus, it is evident that the law regarding the
approach to be adopted by the Court while considering an
application for discharge of the accused person the Court
has to form a definite opinion, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents submitted therewith,
that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
94. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reported
in (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. The
principles which emerged therefrom have been taken note
of in para 21 as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
2025:JHHC:34679
accused has been made out. The test to determine prima
facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could
form an opinion that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the
conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at
that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the
broad probabilities of the case.
2025:JHHC:34679
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused
and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end
in conviction or acquittal."
95. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
court in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI,
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768, the above principles have
been reiterated in para 17, 18, 28 to 31 and the Hon'ble
supreme court has explained as to how the matters of grave
suspicion are to be dealt with. The aforesaid paragraphs
are quoted as under:
"17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law.
We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the
earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and
discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the
accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the
charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements
recorded by the police or the documents produced before
the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully
accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or
rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show
2025:JHHC:34679
that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the
materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents produced
before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the
case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court
to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and
the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to
be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the
strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up
a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at
the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under
Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan
Chakkar). The expression, "the record of the case", used in
Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents
and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The
Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any
document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the
stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the
accused is to be confined to the material produced by the
police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).
28. It is here that again it becomes necessary that we
remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under
Section 227 CrPC. The principle established is to take the
materials produced by the prosecution, both in the form of
oral statements and also documentary material, and act
upon it without it been subjected to questioning through
cross-examination and everything assumed in favour of
the prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no offence, as
2025:JHHC:34679
alleged, is made out against the accused, it, undoubtedly,
would ensure to the benefit of the accused warranting the
trial court to discharge the accused.
29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by
way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him.
30. However, what is the meaning of the expression
"materials on the basis of which grave suspicion is
aroused in the mind of the court's", which is not explained
away? Can the accused explain away the material only
with reference to the materials produced by the
prosecution? Can the accused rely upon material which he
chooses to produce at the stage?
31. In view of the decisions of this Court that the accused
can only rely on the materials which are produced by the
prosecution, it must be understood that the grave
suspicion, if it is established on the materials, should be
explained away only in terms of the materials made
available by the prosecution. No doubt, the accused may
appeal to the broad probabilities to the case to persuade
the court to discharge him."
96. In the case of Asim Shariff v. NIA, (supra), it has
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the words 'not
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly
show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the
charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise
his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by
the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary
for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter
or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and
2025:JHHC:34679
probabilities which is really his function after the trial
starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to
sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature
of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents
produced before the court which ex-facie disclose that there
are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame a charge against him.
97. Thus, from aforesaid legal propositions it can be
safely inferred that if, upon consideration of the record of
the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he
shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for
doing so and if, after such consideration and hearing as
aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an offence,
the trial Court shall frame the charge. However, the defence
of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of
discharge. The accused has no right to produce any
document at that stage. The application for discharge has
2025:JHHC:34679
to be considered on the premise that the materials brought
on record by the prosecution are true.
98. Thus, at the time of considering an application for
discharge, the Court is required to consider to the limited
extent to find out whether there is prima facie evidence
against the accused to believe that he has committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution; if prima facie
evidence is available against the accused then there cannot
be an order of discharge
99. Therefore, the stage of discharge is a stage prior to
framing of the charge and once the Court rejects
the discharge application, it would proceed for framing of
charge. At the stage of discharge, the Judge has merely to
sift and weigh the evidence in order to find out whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused and in other words, the sufficiency of grounds
would take within its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the prosecution or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are
suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to
frame the charge against him and after that if the Judge
comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to
proceed, he will frame a charge and, if not, he
will discharge the accused.
2025:JHHC:34679
100. While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the
case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the
Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which
is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
101. It is considered view that at this stage of the instant
case, the Court was only required to consider whether a
prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the
accused is required to be further tried or not because at the
stage of framing of the charge and / or considering
the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible.
102. In the backdrop of aforesaid case laws and judicial
deduction, this Court is now proceeding to examine the fact
so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the evidence
which has been collected in course of investigation and has
been brought on record, as would be available in the
impugned order prima facie case against the petitioner is
made out or not?
103. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the
petitioner was knowingly a party with the accused persons
namely Afshar Ali Afsu Khan, Punit Bhargava Chhavi
Ranjan Prem Prakash and others in acquisition of proceeds
crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre
2025:JHHC:34679
situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire
Home Road, Ranchi. Further, it has been alleged that the
present petitioner, namely, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was
also knowingly a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan, Ex
D.C, Ranchi in acquiring property of the defence,
government of India situated at Mauja Siram, Plot no. 908,
851 and 910, Ranchi having total area 5.883 acres by
paying only 3 crores although the total consideration
amount in the registered deed was frivolously declared as
Rs. 15 crores.
104. Further, it has come that the accused person
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal also became a party with the
accused Chhavi Ranjan and knowingly indulged in the
process and activity connected with acquisition of another
government property (Khasmahal land) situated at Plot no.
543, 544, 545 and 546, Mauja Pugru, Khata no. 93,
Namkum Anchal, Ranchi admeasuring 9.30 acres. In this
case also, only an amount of Rs. 2.45 crores were paid but,
in the deed, a payment of Rs. 5 crores were fraudulently
mentioned to be paid to one Ashish Chandra Ganguly
(since deceased).
105. In both cases, the accused persons namely Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal and Chhavi Ranjan concealed facts and
relevant documents that established the above properties
2025:JHHC:34679
were government properties. Thus, the accused Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal was knowingly involved in the acquisition
of the above three properties in fraudulent manners which
were nothing but proceeds of crime.
106. Thus, prima facie it has come in the investigation
that the present petitioner knowingly acquired the proceeds
of crime and their knowledge about the forgery committed
with respect to acquiring the above said property is evident
from the fact that they acquired the property at a throw
away price and that too without paying the consideration
amount which was mentioned in the deed.
107. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that prima
facie- material is available against the present petitioner.
108. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphatically contended that there is no evidence gathered
by the prosecution and placed before the court to show that
the present petitioner had any knowledge/ mens rea of the
alleged fraud/forgery in acquisition of the said landed
property.
109. The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of
the PMLA requires the mens rea of 'knowledge'. The
prosecution is not required to prove a motive to commit the
scheduled offence, but must demonstrate that the accused
was knowingly involved in a process or activity connected
2025:JHHC:34679
with proceeds of crime. In the instant case, the petitioner's
knowledge is overwhelmingly established prima facie by the
evidence on record, including his direct WhatsApp
communications and exchange of confidential draft orders
with the then DC Chhavi Ranjan regarding the government
lands, and the suspicious manner in which the Cheshire
Home Road property was acquired. Therefore, the
ingredient of mens rea is fully satisfied for the purpose of
framing charges.
110. Further, in the aforesaid context it requires to refer
herein that the mens rea is a state of mind and under
criminal law, mens rea is considered as the guilty intention
and unless it is found that the accused had the guilty
intention to commit the crime, he cannot be held guilty for
committing the crime, but the same cannot be assessed at
this stage by this Court because same can only be
adjudicated on appreciation of the facts, evidence and the
documents which can only be appreciated in course of trial
when the evidence will be led in this regard.
111. This Court has found substance in the argument
advanced on behalf of the respondent as the issue of mens
rea can only be assessed by appreciating the evidence
either documentary or oral and therefore, this Court is of
2025:JHHC:34679
the view that the issue of mens rea, will not be proper to be
looked herein.
112. It has further been contended that the said three
properties i.e. (i) Cheshire Home Road village Gari plot no.
28 khata 37, (ii) Defence land, Muja Siram plot 908,851,
910 (iii) khasmahal Mauja Pagru,Khata 93, plot 543-546,
has been documented via separate deed chains, separate
official records (defence/khasmahal vs private) and there is
no unity of time, place consideration, vendor, funds, thus,
under the standard for joinder of offences under the
Cr.P.C., this fails the test of ―same transaction‖. It has
further been contended that the complaints anchor the
scheduled offence narrative in the property no. (i) i.e.
Cheshire property but it does not attribute a specific
scheduled offence to property no. (ii) and (iii) i.e. Muja
Siram and Mauja Pagru, therefore property no. (ii) and (iii)
i.e. Muja Siram and Mauja Pagru cannot be treated as
―proceeds of crime‖ without a distinct predicate crime
related to each asset.
113. In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein
the meaning of ―same transaction‖. The expression ―same
transaction‖ from its very nature is incapable of an exact
definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any
artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the
2025:JHHC:34679
ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts
of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction.
It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula
of universal application for the purpose of determining
whether two or more acts constitute the ―same
transaction‖, reference in this regard be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar, (2001) 4 SCC 350.
114. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar
v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 560 has categorically held
that the expression ―same transaction‖, from its very
nature, is incapable of an exact definition and it is not
possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of
universal application for the purpose of determining
whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction.
115. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X5 v. Y1, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1878 wherein it has been categorically held
that in criminal law, the question whether certain acts and
omissions form part of the same transaction often troubles
the Courts. There is no definition of ―same transaction‖ in
the Code and more often than not, this determination is
contingent upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of
2025:JHHC:34679
the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is
being quoted as under:
31. In criminal law, the question whether certain acts and
omissions form part of the same transaction often
troubles the Courts. There is no definition of
"same transaction" in the Code and more often than not,
this determination is contingent upon the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case. To make it judicially
determinable, we have often applied the three tests of
"unity of purpose and design", "proximity of time or place"
and "continuity of action". Reference may be drawn to the
decision of this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao.
116. Herein from relevant paragraphs of the prosecution
complaint which have been quoted and referred
hereinabove, it is evident that investigation under PMLA
has revealed the petitioner's active role and is being the
principal beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions relating
to Cheshire Home Road, Pugru and Siram properties.
Further the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that Pugru and Siram properties do not qualify
as proceeds of crime, is not tenable, because as per the
prosecution complaint both the said properties have been
categorically identified as government properties illegally
acquired by the petitioner in connivance with public
officials.
2025:JHHC:34679
117. Further the knowledge of the petitioner about the
tainted origin of the assets stands established from the
chain of transactions revealed during investigation,
including the acquisition of Cheshire Home Road property,
Pugru property, and Siram property. The investigation
reveals a clear pattern that connects all three transactions
as part of a single, continuous scheme. The evidence prima
facie establishes the petitioner's active and conscious role
in acquiring and concealing these tainted assets, which
goes far beyond a simple purchase.
118. Prima facie the record demonstrates that the
petitioner purchased the immovable properties in question,
including the Cheshire Home Road property, the Pugru
property, and the Siram property, which have been
identified as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the
PMLA. The petitioner's alleged internal procedures of due
diligence or satisfaction regarding the status of these
properties cannot absolve him of criminal liability under
Section 3 of the PMLA. The investigation has clearly
indicated that these acquisitions were funded through
tainted money and are integrally connected with laundering
activities. Thus, the contention that the acquisitions of the
three properties were independent and unconnected is not
fit to be accepted.
2025:JHHC:34679
119. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended
that petitioner is nowhere related to the alleged scheduled
offence.
120. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pavna Dibbur v. Directorate of
Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023) held that
the who could commit an offence under the PMLA maybe
not be named in the scheduled offence.
121. Further the offence of money laundering as
contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately
dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that
Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined
captures every process and activity in dealing with the
proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited
to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted
property in the formal economy to constitute an act of
money laundering. Of course, the authority of the
Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person
for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if
there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section
2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or
activity. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income
and irrespective of its volume, the definition of ―Proceeds of
2025:JHHC:34679
Crime‖ under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the
property has been derived or obtained as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The
property must qualify the definition of ―Proceeds of Crime‖
under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole
of the crime property linked to scheduled offence need not
be regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties
qualifying the definition of ―Proceeds of Crime‖ under
Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime properties.
122. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana
Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has
considered the effect of the appellant not being shown as
an accused in the predicate offence by taking into
consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002.
123. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section
(1) of Section 2 of the Act 2002 which defines "proceeds of
crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe
that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of PMLA
defines "property" to mean any property or assets of every
description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or
immovable, tangible or intangible.
124. To constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it
must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any
person as a result of criminal activity relating to a
2025:JHHC:34679
scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the
proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or
obtained from scheduled offence but also any property
which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a
result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any
such property will also be the proceeds of crime.
125. It has further been observed by referring the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors.(supra) that the condition precedent for the existence
of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence.
At paragraph-15 the finding has been given therein that on
plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence
under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence
is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified
that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled
offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds
of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime,
in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence
under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary
that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of
the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused
2025:JHHC:34679
in the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant
paragraphs are being quoted as under:
15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds
of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this
aspect, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this
Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] . In para
109 of the said decision [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court held thus :
(SCC p. 166)
―109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is
derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can
be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under
the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person
for money laundering on an assumption that the property
recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a
scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same
is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending
inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum.
For, the expression ―derived or obtained‖ is indicative of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already
accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named
in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is
finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction
owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of
quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against
him/her, there can be no action for money laundering
against such a person or person claiming through him in
relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled
offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced
on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in
particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any
other view would be rewriting of these provisions and
disregarding the express language of definition clause
2025:JHHC:34679
―proceeds of crime‖, as it obtains as of now.‖ (emphasis in
original and supplied)
16. In paras 134 and 135, this Court held thus : (Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary case [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , SCC p. 182)
―134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002
Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering
is an independent offence regarding the process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had
been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity
relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The
process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of
concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of
crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or
claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime
would constitute offence of money laundering. This
offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the
proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that
crime.
135.Needless to mention that such process or activity can
be indulged in only after the property is derived or
obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled
offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to
indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such
process or activity in a given fact situation may be a
continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of
commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the
criminal activity may have been committed before the
same had been notified as scheduled offence for the
purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in
or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing
with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such
criminal activity even after it has been notified as
scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for
offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act -- for
2025:JHHC:34679
continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime
(fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it
in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-
laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on
which the scheduled offence, or if we may say so, the
predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date
is the date on which the person indulges in the process
or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These
ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section
3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31-7-
2019); and the same has been merely explained and
clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act,
2019. Thus understood, inclusion of clause (ii) in
Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it
does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.‖
(emphasis supplied)
17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading,
an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a
scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take
the case of a person who is unconnected with the
scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of
the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of
proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of
committing an offence under Section 3 PMLA. To give a
concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to
389IPC relating to ―extortion‖ are scheduled offences
included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused
may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384
to 389IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person
unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the
said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of
extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the
accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the
proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the
offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not
necessary that a person against whom the offence under
Section 3 PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the
accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para
2025:JHHC:34679
135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] supports
the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for
attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that
there must be a scheduled offence and that there must
be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence
as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3
PMLA..
126. It has further been contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that respondent ED has heavily
relied upon the statement of the Co-accused which has
been recorded under Section 50 of the Act 2002 but it is
the settled position of law which has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that such type of evidence cannot be
the sole basis in order to fix the culpability of the accused
person.
127. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that
there is no dispute regarding the settled proposition of law
that the statements recorded which are merely confessional
in nature ought to be ignored while adjudicating upon a
case as confessional statement of co-accused cannot be
treated as substantive evidence and such statements can
only be pressed into service when the Hon'ble Courts are
inclined to accept other evidences. Thus, instead of placing
reliance solely upon the statements of the petitioner and
the other co-accused persons recorded under Section 50 of
2025:JHHC:34679
PMLA, the opposite party ought to have collected and relied
upon other evidence in order to prosecute the petitioner.
128. Further herein it is evident from the prosecution
complaint dated 01.09.2023, filed against the petitioner
and other co-accused persons, is supported by substantial
evidence gathered during the investigation and is not based
solely on the statements of the petitioner and his
accomplices. Furthermore, prima facie there is ample
evidence establishing the petitioner's involvement in the
offence of money laundering, which is further corroborated
by statements of witnesses in the instant case. Further, the
petitioner's role has already been discussed herein in detail
in the preceding paragraphs, therefore, the averments of
the petitioner are unfounded and liable to be dismissed.
129. It requires to refer herein that the legal presumption
under Section 24(a) of the Act 2002, would apply when the
person is charged with the offence of money-laundering and
his direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The
existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational
fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the
involvement of the person in any process or activity
connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are
established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on
2025:JHHC:34679
the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to
rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are
not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence
which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.
130. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Another 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 560 has observed that as established in
multiple judicial pronouncements, cases involving
economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth
the complete chain of events, financial transactions, and
culpability of the accused, therefore the material submitted
by the respondent, coupled with the broad legislative
framework of the PMLA, indicates the necessity of allowing
the trial to proceed and not discharging the appellant at the
nascent stage of charge framing and discharging the
appellant at this stage would be premature and contrary to
the principles governing the prosecution in money
laundering cases, for ready reference the relevant
paragraphs are being quoted as under:
"30. The PMLA was enacted with the primary objective of
preventing money laundering and confiscating the proceeds of
crime, thereby ensuring that such illicit funds do not undermine
the financial system. Money laundering has far-reaching
consequences, not only in terms of individual acts of corruption
but also in causing significant loss to the public exchequer. The
2025:JHHC:34679
laundering of proceeds of crime results in a significant loss to
the economy, disrupts lawful financial transactions, and erodes
public trust in the system. The alleged offences in the present
case have a direct bearing on the economy, as illicit financial
transactions deprive the state of legitimate revenue, distort
market integrity, and contribute to economic instability. Such
acts, when committed by persons in positions of power, erode
public confidence in governance and lead to systemic
vulnerabilities within financial institutions.
31. The illegal diversion and layering of funds have a
cascading effect, leading to revenue losses for the state and
depriving legitimate sectors of investment and financial
resources. It is settled law that in cases involving serious
economic offences, judicial intervention at a preliminary stage
must be exercised with caution, and proceedings should not be
quashed in the absence of compelling legal grounds. The
respondent has rightly argued that in cases involving
allegations of such magnitude, a trial is imperative to establish
the full extent of wrongdoing and to ensure accountability.
32. The PMLA was enacted to combat the menace of money
laundering and to curb the use of proceeds of crime in the
formal economy. Given the evolving complexity of financial
crimes, courts must adopt a strict approach in matters
concerning economic offences to ensure that perpetrators do not
exploit procedural loopholes to evade justice.
33. The present case involves grave and serious allegations of
financial misconduct, misuse of position, and involvement in
transactions constituting money laundering. The appellant
seeks an end to the proceedings at a preliminary stage,
effectively preventing the full adjudication of facts and evidence
before the competent forum. However, as established in
multiple judicial pronouncements, cases involving
economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth
the complete chain of events, financial transactions, and
culpability of the accused.
34. The material submitted by the respondent, coupled
with the broad legislative framework of the PMLA,
2025:JHHC:34679
indicates the necessity of allowing the trial to proceed
and not discharging the appellant at the nascent stage
of charge framing. The argument that the proceedings
are unwarranted is devoid of substance in light of the
statutory objectives, the continuing nature of the offence,
and the significant financial implications arising from
the alleged acts. Discharging the appellant at this stage
would be premature and contrary to the principles
governing the prosecution in money laundering cases.
131. From perusal of case record, statements of
witnesses, materials available on record and in view of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the
special Court has rightly dismissed the discharge
application of the present petitioner.
132. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2001)
9 SCC 631 has observed that the revisional power under
the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a
routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers
the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence
in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are
required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only
when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the
continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of
charge or the facts as stated in the first information report
even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in
2025:JHHC:34679
their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the
accused has been charged.
133. Thus, it is evident that the revisional power can only
be exercised to correct patent error of law or procedure
which would occasion unfairness, if it is not corrected. The
revisional power cannot be compared with the appellate
power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous
examination of the material on record as it is undertaken
by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can
only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the
continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in
the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
for which the accused has been charged.
134. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16
SCC 299 has held that interference in the order framing
charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of
rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction.
135. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu,(supra) has held in
paragraph 81 to 83 as under:
"81. The High Court has acted completely beyond the
settled parameters, as discussed above, which govern the
2025:JHHC:34679
power to discharge the accused from the prosecution. The
High Court could be said to have donned the role of a
chartered accountant. This is exactly what this Court
observed in Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi
[CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18
SCC 135]. The High Court has completely ignored
that it was not at the stage of trial or considering an
appeal against a verdict in a trial. The High Court
has enquired into the materials produced by the
accused persons, compared with the information
compiled by the investigating agency and
pronounced a verdict saying that the explanation
offered by the accused persons deserves to be
accepted applying the doctrine of preponderance of
probability. This entire exercise has been justified on
account of the investigating officer not taking into
consideration the explanation offered by the public servant
and also not taking into consideration the lawful acquired
assets of the wife of the public servant i.e. Respondent 2
herein.
82. By accepting the entire evidence put forward by the
accused persons applying the doctrine of preponderance of
probability, the case put up by the prosecution cannot be
termed as "groundless". As observed by this Court
in C.S.D. Swami [C.S.D. Swami v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7]
that the accused might have made statements before the
investigating officer as to his alleged sources of income,
but the same, strictly, would not be evidence in the case.
83. Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act makes a departure
from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden
will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients
of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to
disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of
Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish
that the accused was in possession of properties
disproportionate to his known sources of income but the
term "known sources of income" would mean the sources
known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the
2025:JHHC:34679
accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for
the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets
in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to
give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an
attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of
Section 239CrPC. At the stage of Section 239CrPC, the
court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide
whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless."
136. It requires to refer herein that the ambit and scope
of exercise of power of discharge, are fairly well settled
which has been elaborately discussed in the preceding
paragraph and as per settled proposition of law no
comprehensive assessment of the materials or meticulous
consideration of the possible defences need to be
undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing
materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage.
The only deliberation at the stage of discharge is as to
whether prima facie case was made out or not and whether
the accused is required to be further tried or not.
137. Further, it is well settled that the revisional power
cannot be parallelled with appellate power. The Revisional
Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the
material on record as is undertaken by the Trial Court or
the Appellate Court.
138. Hence, on the basis of discussion made herein
above, and further taking into consideration the ratio
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
2025:JHHC:34679
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate of
Enforcement and Another (supra) this court is of the
considered view that, there is no illegality in the impugned
order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge, PMLA Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No.05
of 2023 in ECIR/ RNZO/10/2023.
139. Accordingly, this Court do not find any justifiable
reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated
25.01.2025, consequently, the instant criminal revision
petition is hereby dismissed.
140. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
141. It is made clear that any observation made
hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on
merit since the trial is lying pending.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
A.F.R.
19th November, 2025
Alankar/-
