Kerala High Court
P.R. Sandhya vs The Director Of Enforcement on 9 October, 2025
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
1
2025:KER:75046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1 OF 2022 OF SPE/CBI COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3:
P.R. SANDHYA
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O LATE P.K. SANAL KUMAR, SREE SANDHYA, I.A.S ROAD, OPPOSITE KALAVIKKAL HOUSE,
VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SHRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
RESPONDENT:
THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
REP.BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOCHI ZONEL OFFICE, KANOOS
CASTLE, A.K SESHADRI ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY ADV SHRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SC, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP- SMT.REKHA.S....SPL.PP- SRI.A.RAJESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON
09.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2
2025:KER:75046
"C R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
======================
Crl.M.C. No. 4107 of 2022
======================
Dated 09th day of October 2025
ORDER
The 3rd accused in S.C. No. 1 of 2022 on the files of the Special
Court/CBI Thiruvananthapuram (originally filed as S.C. No. 412 of
2018 before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam) arising out of
ECIR No.17/2009 of the Directorate of Enforcement (for short, 'ED'
hereafter), Kochi has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short, 'the CrPC'
hereafter) and the prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure--G
complaint and further proceedings thereof against the petitioner in the
interest of justice.
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner,
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the ED and perused the
decisions as well as the prosecution records made available.
3. While seeking quashment of the case as against the
petitioner/3rd accused, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that ED registered R.C.No.18(A)/2008/CBI/KER
against the petitioner arraying her as the 2nd accused and when the
matter had been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court as
C.C.No.125 of 2021 the petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.2017 of 2022
before this Court and in the said proceedings as per order dated
10.04.2025, this Court quashed the same where the prosecution alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act 1988)
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'
hereafter) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 by the petitioner
along with the other accused. Accordingly it is submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in fact the predicate offence
alleged in Crime No.RC.18(A)/2008 is not available. Therefore the
present complaint (Annexure-G) alleging commission of offence under
Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short,
'the PML Act, 2002' hereafter) punishable under Section 4 of the PML
Act, 2002 would not sustain against the petitioner in the absence of a
predicate/scheduled offence to precede.
4. In fact the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the three Bench decision
of the Apex Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SCC 929 Vijay
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others
particularly with reference to paragraph No.270 and also the decision of
the Apex Court reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 Pavana
Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement with reference to paragraph
Nos. 17 and 31. It is also pointed out that the PML Act, 2002 came into
force with effect from 01.07.2005 and Section 2(y) defined 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 offence is thirty lakh rupees or more. It is pointed out by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case the
amount involved as per the allegation of the prosecution in the
complaint is only Rs.15 lakh and therefore the offences alleged in
R.C.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM under the PC Act, 1988 viz. Sections 7, 12,
13(2) r/w 13(1), Section 7 would not come under the purview of
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
scheduled offences. It is argued further that the offences alleged under
Section 120B or 420 of IPC in R.C.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM are not
scheduled offences during the period. It is also pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further that for the purpose of
treating the offences alleged in R.C.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM the amount
involved would come to Rs.30 lakh or more. Apart from that it is
contended that as per Section 3 of PML Act, 2002 mens rea or
knowledge of the person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge
assists or to 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 unstained
property is the inevitable ingredient and without which the said offence
would not lie. Therefore the knowledge should be gathered from the very
beginning to sustain an offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002. In
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
this connection the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought
to the notice of this Court the allegation in RC.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM,
which was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the ED as
the predicate or scheduled offence wherein it has been stated that in
pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy Sri.P.K.Sanal kumar (A1)
accepted Rs.15 lakh from Sri.M.R.Lenin (A3) and Sri.Pradeep Rajan
(A5) through Cheque No.638123 dated 01.12.2006 for Rs.10 lakh of
HDFC Bank, Bangalore and cheque No.255545 dated 27.02.2007 for
Rs.5 lakh of HDFC Bank, Vazhuthacaud Branch, which were deposited
in the joint account of Sri.P.K.Sanalkumar (A1) and his wife
Smt.P.R.Sandhya in HDFC Bank, Palakkad/Vazhuthacaud, as
gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive/reward for
doing the above official Act Sri.M.R.Lenin (A3) and Sri.Pradeep Rajan
(A5) in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy abetted the
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act,
1988 by Sri.P. K.Sanalkumar (A1) who was a public servant by offering
the bribe amount of Rs.15 lakh. That apart the statement of the
petitioner that appears in pages 87 and 88 also brought to the notice of
this court and the same is extracted as follows:-
"I had purchased a land extending to 25 cents and 237 sq.links in Survey
No. 2364 /7-1 (Resurvey No. 249/14-1) at Andoorkonam village for
Rs.2,50,000/- on 06.12.2006 as per deed No.5016/2006 of SRO
Pothenkode. The stamp duty paid for the above purchase was
Rs.25,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,75,000/- paid by cheque on 05.12.2006
refers to the payment made in this connection. Further the above said 2
DDs for Rs.6,00,000/- taken by me was also used by me purchasing
another property as per deed No.359/2007 of SRO Pothenkod on
22.01.2007. Apart from the DDs for 6 lakh mentioned above (value of
property) a further amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by cheque on
13.01.2007 to meet the expenses in connection with stamp duty etc. The
property purchased on 06.12.2006 by deed No. 5016/2006 (25 cents and
237 sq.links in Resurvey No. 249/14-1) is still under my possession. The
other property purchased in January 2007 has since been disposed of by
me and the funds received were used for household expenses."
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
5. In reply to this argument the learned Standing Counsel for the
ED apart from placing reliance on the decisions in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary's case (supra) and Pavana Dibbur's case (supra)
placed a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 2076 of
2016 and connected cases, referring to paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 to
contend that even Section 420 of IPC was not incorporated in the
Schedule with effect from 15.02.2013 since the petitioner has been
dealing with proceeds of crime derived or obtained from a criminal
activity even after it has been notified as as scheduled offence to be liable
to be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering under the PML
Act,2002. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the
ED that in prosecution under Section 3 of PML Act, 2002 the
presumption under Section 24 (a) and (b) would apply.
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
6. Similar statement given by the 1st accused who is the husband of
the petitioner was also read out.
7. Therefore, the question whether the petitioner possesses the
proceeds of crime, with or without knowledge, is a matter of evidence
and cannot be determined in a petition seeking quashing of the case. It
is also pointed out that, even otherwise, since the CBI has registered a
case alleging that the property was admittedly purchased in the name of
the petitioner using money out of ₹15 lakh allegedly demanded and
accepted by her husband, Sri.Sanal Kumar, as bribe and she has been
possessing the same as of now also, the same would show that she knew
that she has been in possession of property acquired with the said
money, which constitutes proceeds of crime. This is sufficient to hold
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
prima facie that she had the knowledge or mens rea necessary to
constitute an offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, it is relevant to refer
paragraph 270 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case (supra) as
under:-
"270. 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 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-
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
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"
9. Similarly it is relevant to extract paragraphs 17 and 31 of
Pavana Dibbur's case (supra) and the same as under:-
"17. Coming back to Section 3 of the 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 of the PMLA. To give a concrete example, the
offences under Sections 384 to 389 of the IPC relating to "extortion"
are scheduled offences included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the
PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by
Sections 384 to 389 of IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person
unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person
who assists the accused in the scheduled offence final report 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 of the PMLA is alleged must have
been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in
paragraph 270 of the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary supports the above conclusion. The conditions
precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 of the 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
subsection (1) of Section 3 of the PMLA.
xxxxxxxxx
31. While we reject the first and second submissions canvassed by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the third
submission must be upheld. Our conclusions are:
a. 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
in the scheduled offence;
b. Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the PMLA is not
an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit from the acquittal
of all the accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all the accused
in the scheduled offence. Similarly, he will get the benefit of the order of
quashing the proceedings of the scheduled offence;
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
c. The first property cannot be said to have any connection with the
proceeds of the crime as the acts constituting scheduled offence were
committed after the property was acquired;
d. The issue of whether the appellant has used tainted money forming
part of the proceeds of crime for acquiring the second property can be
decided only at the time of trial; and
e. The offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC will become a
scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an
offence which is specifically included in the Schedule."
10. On reading the above decision it is clear that it is not necessary
that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act,
2002 is alleged, must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled
offence. Even if an accused shown in the complaint under the PML Act,
2002 is not an accused in the scheduled offence, he will benefit from the
acquittal of all accused in the scheduled offence or discharge of all the
accused in the scheduled offence. Similarly he will get the benefit of the
order of quashing the proceedings in the scheduled offence. Most
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
importantly the first property (the alleged proceeds of crime) cannot be
said to have any connection with the proceeds of the crime holding that
the acts constituting scheduled offence were committed after the
property was acquired. The issue as to whether the accused has used
tainted money forming part of the proceeds of crime for acquiring the
second property can be decided only at the time of trial.
11. Going by the Division Bench decision of this Court in
W.A.No.2076 of 2016 and connected cases in paragraph No.4 the
Division Bench addressed the questions as to whether the offence of
money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 could be
extended to a predicate offence which happened prior to the coming into
force of the PML Act, 2002 or before the inclusion of such offences in
the Schedule of the PML Act, 2002. While answering this question this
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
Court held in paragraph No. 4 that this question is no longer re integra
as it was held that in Vijay Mandalal Chaudharay and Others v.
Union of India & Ors. [(2023) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that
it was possible, as the offence under Section 3 is a continuing offence.
12. The Division Bench further observed that the Apex Court in
its judgment dated 17.03.2025 in SLP(Crl.) 6185/2023 (Pradeep
Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement &
Another) answered this question pointedly and in the affirmative. The
Court held that money laundering is not a static event but an ongoing
activity, as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or
reintroduced into the economy and thus if the accused commits any of
the acts as defined in Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 after its
commencement, the Enforcement Directorate could maintain a criminal
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
action against him, irrespective of the fact that the predicate offence
allegedly took place before the commencement of the PML Act, 2002.
13. Finally this court held in paragraph No.6 as under:-
6. Article 20(1) of the Constitution declares that a person shall
not be convicted for any offence except for violation of a law in
force at the time of commission of the act. The expression 'law
in force' refers to a law that is factually in operation at the time
when the offence is committed, in contrast to a law 'deemed to
be in force' due to the retrospective operation of a subsequently
enacted law. This interdiction cannot be extended to a case of
the above nature where a person is allegedly using the proceeds
of crime or projecting or claiming it as untainted property, after
the commencement of the relevant statutory provision. In that
case, there is no question of retrospective operation of a penal
law. There is only a reference in the statute to a past action,
which is only for the identification of the subject - the proceeds
of crime. There is no penal consequence for the past act done
by him, under the PMLA."
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
14. In this connection it is relevant to refer to Section 3 as well as
Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002 also for reference. Section 3 provides 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 1[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.
2[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
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
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.]
15. Section 24 reads as under:-
Section 24:-Burden of Proof.-- in any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime
under this Act,-
(a) In the case of a person charged with the offence of
money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court
shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such
proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and
(b) in the case of any other person the Authority or
Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are
involved in money-laundering.
16. It is true that as per the common order passed by this Court in
Crl.R.P.No.560 of 2021 and Crl.M.C.No.2017 of 2022 case against the
petitioner which was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvanathapuram as C.C. No. 125 of 2021 was quashed by this
Court. In fact the said case arose out of RC.18(A)/2008/CBI/KER.
However the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
ED is that the predicate offence for the purpose of the present complaint
is R.C.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC r/w Sections 7,
13(1) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 where the petitioner is not an
accused, but her husband is an accused.
17. Going by the decisions extracted hereinabove, the legal
position is no longer re integra on point that as long as illegal gains are
possessed projected as legitimate or reintroduced into the economy and
thus if the accused commits any of the offences as defined in Section 3 of
the PML Act, 2002 after its amendment, the ED could maintain a
criminal action against the accused irrespective of the fact that the
predicate offence allegedly took place before the commencement of the
PML Act, 2002. To put it differently, the conditions precedent for
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
attracting the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 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 Section 3 of
the PML Act, 2002.
18. In the instant case, when the statement of the husband
of the accused was recorded by the ED, he has given statement that out
of Rs.10 lakh received , two properties were purchased by my wife. The first
property was purchased for Rs.2,50,000/- plus stamp duty of Rs.25,000/- on
06.12.2006 vide deed No. 5016 of 2006 of SRO Pothenkode and the second
property was purchased for Rs.6 lakh plus stamp duty on 22.01.2007
vide deed No. 359/2007 of SRO Pothenkode. The second property has since been
sold by my wife and the funds were used for household expenses. When the
statement of the petitioner was recorded she also deposed in similar terms
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
as already observed. Now the question arises for consideration is whether
in view of the pendency of prosecution originated from
RC.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM holding that the petitioner has been dealing
with proceeds of crime derived or obtained bribe money by her husband
even after the said activity was notified as a scheduled offence so as to
maintain the prosecution or else the prayer for quashment of the
complaint is liable to be allowed.
19. On scrutiny of the settled law as discussed, even if the criminal
activities may have been committed before the same had been notified as
a scheduled offence for the purpose of the PML Act, 2002, 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, is liable to be
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
prosecuted for offence of money- laundering under the PML Act, 2002-
for 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.
20. Even though the predicate scheduled offence alleged herein is
pertaining to RC.5(A)/2009/CBI/TVM, the proceeds of the said crime
are admittedly in the possession of the petitioner, being part of the
proceeds of crime derived therefrom. Regarding mens rea or knowledge,
as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is concerned,
the same has to be inferred from the circumstances to be born out from
the materials for the time being, since the case is at the pre-trial stage. As
argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Enforcement
Directorate, even after registration of the present crime, and even at the
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
time of filing this Criminal M.C., the petitioner has been continuing
possession of the proceeds of crime. Therefore, it cannot be held at this
stage that she had no knowledge or mens rea in possessing the same.
Hence, this contention cannot be accepted to the advantage of the
petitioner at this pre-trial stage, since the same is a matter to be
considered during trial after adducing evidence.
21. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution
records prima facie justify the involvement of the petitioner, who is
arrayed as the 3rd accused in this case, and therefore, the trial of the 3rd
accused for the said offences is inevitable. In such circumstances, the
prayer for quashment on the grounds urged by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained.
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
22. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case fails and is
accordingly dismissed, with direction to the Special Court to proceed
with the trial against the petitioner and to dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible.
23. The interim order of stay shall stand vacated.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
the special court forthwith for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
CRL.MC NO. 4107 OF 2022
2025:KER:75046
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. R.C 5(A)/ 2009 /CBI/TVM
DATED 30-08-2009
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 9 OF
2011 OF SPE/CBI COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF ECIR NO.17 / CZ/ 2009-2010
/COCHIN DATED 15-02-2010.
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY ACCUSED
NO. 1/ HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF. STATEMENT OF M.R. LENIN
/ACCUSED NO.3
Annexure F TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22-07-2016
Annexure G THE CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT IN S.C. NO. 1
OF 2022, BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT/CBI
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure H TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PREVENTION
MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002
