Madras High Court
Abdul Haleem vs State Represented By on 12 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.R.C.No.358 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Crl.R.C.No.358 of 2025
Abdul Haleem ...Petitioner
vs.
State represented by,
The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Chennai Zonal Office – II,
Government of India,
5th Floor, III Block, B-Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS
to set aside the judgment “sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 4½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months” passed by the
learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in
Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2024 as against the petitioner by considering the period of
incarceration and acquit the petitioner.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.358 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)
In the case in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the XII Additional
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, charges were framed against a total
of eight accused for the offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2022 [hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”] punishable
under Section 4 of PMLA. Among the eight accused, the cases against A2
to A6 were split up and assigned with new C.C. Numbers. The petitioner
herein has been arrayed as A8. Before the Special Court, A8 had filed a
petition admitting to the above charge. In consequence to such admission,
neither was any witness adduced nor was any document marked. The Trial
Court, on the evidence on record, had recorded that there exists proceeds
of crime and the concerned accused was involved in the process of activity
connected therewith and thereby constituted the offence of money
laundering. On the basis of such foundational facts, it had applied the legal
presumption under Section 24 of PMLA and found him guilty under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
Section 258 of BNSS and thereby convicted under Section 4 of PMLA for
having committed the offence under Section 3 of PMLA. Accordingly, he
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4½ years and to pay
a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months, through its judgment dated 30.09.2024, which is assailed in this
revision.
2. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has not raised any
grounds challenging the judgment on its merits, but has only made a
sympathetic plea that the quantum of sentence to be modified as against
the period of incarceration already undergone by him.
3. Section 4 of PMLA provides for punishment for money
laundering with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than three years and shall exceed up to seven years and shall be liable to
be fined. The proviso to Section 4, which extends the maximum
punishment to ten years for an offence specified under Paragraph 2 of
Part-A of the Schedule, will not be applicable to the facts of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by taking
into account the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the criminal
involvement recorded by the Special Court against the petitioner, the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 4½ years and the fine was excessive.
He also submitted that the petitioner's family is in severe financial crisis
and it would be impossible for him to pay the fine amount of Rs.4,00,00/-
and thereby sought for a lenient view in reducing the sentence.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit
that the maximum sentence provided for under Section 4 is seven years
and the Special Court has already taken into consideration the gravity and
seriousness and has refrained from imposing the maximum punishment
and thereby further reduction in the period of sentence was not desirable.
6. The only issue that requires to be determined is as to whether the
sentence of 4 years of rigorous imprisonment together with the fine of
Rs.4,00,00/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
imposed by the Special Court, can be interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
7. We are conscious of the fact that imposition of the sentence
would be solely to the discretion of the Trial Court. However, such
discretion, while awarding sentence, requires to be exercised in a judicious
manner.
8. On this aspect, we may observe that it has been consistently held
in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while awarding
sentences, a Judge has a wide discretion within the statutory limits and
therefore, there cannot be any uniformity in imposition of such offences.
In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal and Another reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 535, it has been held that while imposing the punishment,
the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while
exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality,
deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary
to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the
commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence
depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
9. The Hon'ble Court in the case of Soman v. State of Kerala
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382, observed thus:-
“?27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing
decisions on various different rationales ? most
prominent amongst which would be proportionality
and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal
action can be relevant from both a proportionality
and deterrence standpoint.
27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned,
the sentence must be commensurate with the
seriousness or gravity of the offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging
seriousness of the offence is the consequences
resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still
be properly attributed to the offender if they were
reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and
underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of
toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but
the distributor and the retail vendor would know its
likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any
harm to the consumer might not be directly intended,
some aggravated culpability must attach if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result
of consuming the spurious liquor.?”
10. The same is the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2
SCC 648, wherein it was observed as follows:-
“?84. Sentencing is an important task in the
matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the
criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate,
just and proportionate sentence commensurate with
the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in
which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket
formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime.
The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin
objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and
correction. What sentence would meet the ends of
justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity
of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the
offence and all other attendant circumstances.?”
11. On an overall appraisal of the aforesaid decisions, it could be
said that the imposition of sentence by a Court would be determinable on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
the facts and circumstances of each case and would be within the
discretion of the concerned Court.
12. In the instant case, the accused had pleaded guilty of the charges
levelled against him and had refrained him from letting in any oral or
documentary evidences. It is also his case that he has been under
incarceration for more than three years and hails from a weaker section of
the society and his family is struck with poverty.
13. By taking into account these facts and circumstances and in the
light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by us above,
we are of the view that if the sentence is modified to the minimum
sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years, together with a sentence
to undergo six months of simple imprisonment, since the accused has
expressed his inability to pay the fine amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, the ends of
justice could be secured.
14. In the light of the above observations, the judgment of the
learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases in Spl.C.C.No.7 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
2021, dated 30.09.2024, insofar as it awards the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment of four years, is modified to rigorous imprisonment of three
years. The petitioner shall also undergo simple imprisonment for a further
period of six months, in lieu of the fine amount of Rs.4,00,00/- and
thereby undergo a total period of 3 ½ years of imprisonment. The period of
custody already undergone by the petitioner shall be set off under Section
428 Cr.P.C/468 of BNSS and shall undergo the remaining period of
imprisonment only. In case the petitioner has already undergone the
imprisonment of three years, he shall be set free forthwith, unless his
presence is required in any other case. The Criminal Revision Case stands
thus allowed. No costs.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
12.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
hvk
Note: Issue order copy on 16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
hvk
To
1.The XII Additional Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Chennai Zonal Office – II,
Government of India,
5th Floor, III Block, B-Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison-I, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066.
4.The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 08:41:26 pm )
