Madras High Court
Rahul Surana vs The Assistant Director on 19 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
2025:MHC:2623
CRL RC No. 1541 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 04.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
CRL RC No. 1541 of 2025
Rahul Surana
S/o.Shri Dinesh Chand Surana,
Male aged about 36 years,
A-34, 6th Street, Anna Nagar (East),
Chennai – 600 102.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
Chennai Zonal Office-I,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,
No.2, Kushkumar Road,
BSNL Administrative Building,
5th and 6th Floor, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
ECIR No.CEZO-1/05/2019
Respondent(s)
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
CRL RC No. 1541 of 2025
PRAYER
To call for the records and set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2025
in Spl.C.C.No.9 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Special Court for
CBI Cases, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Shree Singh
for Mr.Vishnu Vardhan.J
and Mr.Mayank Pandey
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Ramesh
Special Public Prosecutor For ED Cases
JUDGMENT
S.M.Subramaniam,J.
The Criminal Revision Case is directed against docket order, dated
17.02.2025 in Spl.C.C.No. 9 of 2022 on the file of XIV Additional Special
Judge for CBI cases/ Special Court for Trial of offences under Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
I. FACTS:
2. The case of the prosecution is that Surana Industries Limited
orchestrated a criminal conspiracy to defraud public sector banks of
Rs.1,301 Crores through misappropriation, fraud, and manipulation of
accounts. As per the Respondent, the modus operandi included creation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
a web of shell and dummy companies to siphon loan funds via fictitious
transactions, which were then layered and ultimately invested in movable
and immovable properties as the alleged proceeds of crime.
3. The Enforcement Directorate filed a Main Prosecution Complaint
under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA before the Special Court, Chennai on
09.09.2022 against 8 accused persons for offences punishable under
Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of
the said Main Complaint on 25.11.2022 and registered the matter as Spl.
C.C.No.9 of 2022. Subsequently, a First Supplementary Prosecution
Complaint was filed on 11.6.2024 against 19 additional accused persons.
The said complaint was taken on file on 06.08.2024.The present petitioner,
Shri Rahul Surana, was not arrayed as an accused either in the Main
Complaint or in the First Supplementary Complaint. A Second
Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed on 06.11.2024 against 15
additional accused persons, including the present petitioner (shown as
Accused No. 42). The said complaint was taken on file and process was
issued on 17.02.2025.The petitioner has now challenged the order dated
17.02.2025 primarily on the ground that he was not afforded an opportunity
of being heard before the Special Court took cognizance, as allegedly
required by the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
4. In order to derive the essence behind the proviso to Section 223(1)
of BNSS, it becomes imperative to discuss the meaning and character of
the phrase ‘taking cognizance’ in the light of various decisions rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
II.COGNIZANCE MEANING:
5. Cognizance essentially means that the Judge should have applied
his judicial mind and prima facie be satisfied that the allegations in the
complaint, if proved, would constitute an offence.
6. Various decisions rendered by the Courts of law have explained the
significance of the term cognizance. In R.R.Chari Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh1, in para 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that the
word “cognizance” is used by the Court to indicate the point when
Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. Therefore, it is
understood that cognizance of an offence takes place, when a Judicial
Magistrate applies his mind and takes judicial notice of the offence.
7. In Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal2, the Hon’ble
1 1951 SCC 250
2 (2008) 17 SCC 157
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
Supreme Court of India observed as follows:
“17. Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a
Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance
of an offence, it is imperative that he must have
taken notice of the accusations and applied his
mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in
the police report or the information received from a
source other than a police report, as the case may
be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little
emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate
applies his mind and is satisfied that the
allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence
and decides to initiate proceedings against the
alleged offender, that it can be positively stated
that he has taken cognizance of the offence.
Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the
offender."
8. So this observation points out two main characteristics of the words
‘taking cognizance’. One is that, the application of mind plays a pivotal role
to fulfil the process of taking cognizance. So this procedure shall not be an
empty formality. Second point is that cognizance is taken with regard to the
offence and not the offender.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
III.COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE OR COGNIZANCE OF ACCUSED:
9. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that cognizance is taken
of an offence and not of the offender. This principle has been further
elaborated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs State of Maharastra3. The
relevant portion is extracted below:
“74. …While cognizance is already taken of
the main offence against the accused already
arrayed, the supplementary charge-sheet may
provide scope for taking cognizance of additional
charges or against more accused with reference to
the offence already taken cognizance of and the
only scope would be for the added offender to
seek for discharge after the filing of the
supplementary charge-sheet against the said
offender.
75. In CREF Finance Ltd Vs. Shree
Shanthi Homes (P) Limted4, this Court has held:
'Cognizance is taken of the offence and
not of the offender and, therefore, once the
court on perusal of the complaint is
satisfied that the complaint discloses the
commission of an offence and there is no
reason to reject the complaint at that
3 (2015) 7 SCC 440
4 (2005) 7 SCC 467
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
stage, and proceeds further in the matter,
it must be held to have taken cognizance
of the offence. One should not confuse
taking of cognizance with issuance of
process. Cognizance is taken at the initial
stage when the Magistrate peruses the
complaint with a view to ascertain whether
the commission of any offence is
disclosed.”
In State of Andra Pradesh Vs. Pastor P.
Raju5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in
paragraph 13 as follows:
“13. It is necessary to mention here that
taking cognizance of an offence is not the
same thing as issuance of a process.
Cognizance is taken at the initial stage
when the Magistrate applies his judicial
mind to the facts mentioned in a
complaint…”
10. Hence, these aforementioned judicial decisions clearly reinforces
the legal principle that cognizance is of the offence and not the offender.
11. Also Explanation (ii) to Section 44 of PMLA specifically provides
for supplementary complaints. The Explanation (ii) to Section 44 clarifies
5 (2006) 6 SCC 728
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
that the prosecution complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent
complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring
any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person
involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been
filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.
12. Hence, the language of the Section makes it clear that
supplementary complaint is not a fresh or independent complaint but is
deemed to be part and parcel of the main complaint in respect of which
cognizance has already been taken. Taking multiple cognizance of the
same offence would render the judicial process redundant and result in
delay in the justice delivery process. Once cognizance of an offence is
taken, any further supplementary prosecution complaint is considered as
flowing from the main prosecution complaint for which the Court has already
taken cognizance. So adding multiple layers of procedure to an already
cognized complaint is a futile exercise.
13. In the present case, cognizance of the offence was already taken
on 25.11.2022 and so the Second Supplementary Complaint does not
involve taking cognizance afresh;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
14. The daily order dated 17.02.2025, which states that "Cognizance
of the complaint as against the accused 28 to 42 taken can be understood
as merely an error and can be ignored for the reason that cognizance
cannot be taken again for the (i) 2nd time (ii) as against the accused. It shall
be read as the Second Supplementary Complaint was taken on file on
17.02.2025, it was being added to the existing proceedings in Spl. C.C.
No.9 of 2022 where cognizance had already been taken.
15. This cannot be construed as a material or substantive error. It is
mere curable error of expression. This curable error can neither go to the
extent of vitiating the entire proceeding nor can it result in miscarriage of
justice.
16. The impugned order of the learned Trial Judge sufficiently
demonstrates application of mind on the part of the learned Trial Judge. The
order adequately showcases that materials placed before was perused and
that prima facie opinion to the Trial Judge’s satisfaction was formed to
proceed further. Hence, this shows that the learned Trial Judge has applied
his judicial mind and issued summons as a consequence of taking
cognizance. When the intent of the order is issuance of process based on
the complaint, there does not arise a need for an elaborate or reasoned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
order. Brief Orders which convey the intent and satisfaction of the Learned
Trial Judge on perusal of the materials before him is sufficient to pass the
litmus test as laid down in law.
17. This can be further substantiated by the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pramila Devi & Others Vs State of Jharkhand6, wherein
a question arose as to whether detailed reasons should be recorded while
taking cognizance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the
summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit
reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate
must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to
the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed
therewith.
15. In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000
SCC (Cri) 303] the following passage will be apposite in this context:
(SCC p. 726, para 12)
"12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court
should write an order showing the reasons for framing
a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts
be further burdened with such an extra work. The time
has reached to adopt all possible measures to
expedite the court procedures and to chalk out
6 2025 INSC 560
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable
delays. It a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at
different stages merely because the counsel would
address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced
progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be
slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory
orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running
into several pages. We can appreciate if such a
detailed order has been passed for culminating the
proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary
to write detailed orders at other stages, such as
issuing process. remanding the accused to custody,
framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the
trial."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [(1976)
3 SCC 736: 1976 SCC (Cri) 507] this Court held that it is not the
province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the
merits or demerits of the case. It was further held that in deciding
whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into
consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint
or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the
allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion
in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him.
It was further held that: (SCC p. 741, para 5)
"5. ... Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion
it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to
substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
or to examine the case on merits with a view to find
out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if
proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the
accused."
17. In Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal
Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139: 2003 SCC (Cri) 788] this Court, in para
9, held as under: (SCC pp. 145-46)
"9. In determining the question whether any process is
to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be
satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground
for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for
supporting the conviction, can be determined only at
the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of
issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is
not required to record reasons. This question was
considered recently in U.P. Pollution Control Board v.
Mohan Meakins Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 745] and after
noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v.
State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000 SCC (Cri) 303]
it was held as follows: (U.P.Pollution case [(2000) 3
SCC 745], SCC p. 749, para 6)
“6. The legislature has stressed the need to
record reasons in certain situations such as
dismissal of a complaint without issuing process.
There is no such legal requirement imposed on a
Magistrate for passing detailed order while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
issuing summons. The process issued to the
accused cannot be quashed merely on the
ground that the Magistrate had not passed a
speaking order.'"
18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi
[(2009) 2 SCC 147: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679] this Court, in para 23,
held as under: (SCC p. 154)
"23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of
issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned
with the allegations made in the complaint or the
evidence led in support of the same and he is only to
be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused."
19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by
the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the
summoning order was not a reasoned order.'
(emphasis supplied)
17. The view in Bhushan Kumar (supra) was reiterated in
Mehmood Ul Rehman v Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12
SCC 420 and State of Gujarat v Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta,
(2019) 20 SCC 539. This Court in Rakhi Mishra v State of Bihar,
(2017) 16 SCC 772 restated the settled proposition of law
enunciated in Sonu Gupta v Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424,
as under:
'4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
erred in allowing the application filed by Respondents 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and quashing the criminal proceedings
against them. A perusal of the FIR would clearly show that the
appellant alleged cruelty against Respondents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9 and 10. This Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta [Sonu
Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424: (2015) 2 SCC
(Cri) 265] held as follows: (SCC p. 429, para 8)
"8. ... At the stage of cognizance and summoning the
Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only
with a view to take cognizance of the offence ... to find
out whether a prima facie case has been made out for
summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the
learned Magistrate is not required to consider the
defence version or materials or arguments nor is he
required to evaluate the merits of the materials or
evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate
must not undertake the exercise to find out at this
stage whether the materials would lead to conviction
or not."
5. The order passed by the trial court taking cognizance
against R-2 and R-4 to R-9 is in conformity with the law laid down in
the above judgment. It is settled law that the power under Section
482 CrPC is exercised by the High Court only in exceptional
circumstances only when a prima facie case is not made out against
the accused. The test applied by this Court for interference at the
initial stage of a prosecution is whether the uncontroverted
allegations prima facie establish a case.'
(emphasis supplied)”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
18. Hence, the language of the impugned order does not show any
irregularity and so the objection raised by the Petitioner at this stage cannot
be entertained.
IV.PRE-COGNIZANCE HEARING:
19. The averments of the Petitioner that the benefit of pre-cognizance
hearing as prescribed under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of
BNSS was not given to the petitioner, cannot be applied to the present case,
as it does not involve taking cognizance of the Main Prosecution Complaint
for the first time. The issue before us is a challenge to the impugned order
dealing with supplementary complaint. And as already discussed above the
Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only for the first time.
20. Pre-cognizance hearing cannot be equated with a mini- trial. It is
only for the Court to satisfy itself on jurisdiction and related procedural
aspects. Any further delving into the factual defences or evidences at this
stage should not be entertained.
21. Further reliance was placed by the Petitioner on the judgement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs
Enforcement Directorate7, where the Hon'ble Court had made it crystal
clear that the pre-cognizance hearing afforded to the accused is a
mandatory procedure as stipulated under proviso to Section 223(1) of
BNSS. So this admitted position of law does not stand disputed.
22. However, the facts in Kushal kumar case is clearly distinguishable
from the present case. In Kushal kumar case, the Court was dealing with a
fresh complaint and no prior cognizance had been taken of any offence.
Therefore, the mandatory procedure as prescribed under proviso to Section
223(1) of BNSS was squarely applicable. But in the present case,
cognizance was already taken on the main complaint filed on 09.09.2022
and as already discussed above supplementary complaint is considered as
part and parcel of main complaint as per Explanation (ii) to section 44 of
PMLA and hence taking fresh cognizance of the supplementary complaint
has not arisen here so the procedure stipulated under proviso to Section
223(1) of BNSS finds no relevance to the present case.
V. STALE MATERIAL VS NEW MATERIAL:
23. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Purpose of
7 2025 SCC OnLine 1221
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
Explanation (ii) to Section 44, PMLA is two-fold:
(a) Read with Section 44(1)(b), PMLA, it explicitly confers the Special
Court with the power to take cognizance of a complaint filed by the
Enforcement Directorate. Both the CrPC and the BNSS only confer
Magistrates with the power of cognizance; and
(b) It explicitly recognizes supplementary complaints that are the
result of "further investigation" to bring "further evidence, oral or
documentary, against any accused person".
24. It was also submitted by the Petitioner that the language used in
respect of investigation and supplementary complaints in Explanation (ii) to
Section 44, PMLA is identical to the language used in Section 173(8), CrPC
(corresponding to Section 193(9), BNSS) i.e., "further investigation" and
obtaining "further evidence, oral or documentary".
25. In respect of “further investigation” under section 173(8), CrPC,
the petitioner counsel placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court
Judgement in Mariam Fasihuddin Vs State of Karnataka8, where it was
reiterated that the terms "further investigation" must concern "further
8 (2024) 11 SCC 733
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
evidence, oral or documentary" that has been collected by the investigating
agency. Thus, the provision for submitting a supplementary report (or a
supplementary complaint) "infers that fresh, oral or documentary evidence
should be obtained rather than re-evaluating or reassessing the material
already collected and considered by the investigating agency while
submitting the initial police report".
26. Hence the Petitioner contended that in the present case, the 2nd
Supplementary Prosecution Complaint relies entirely on material dating
from 2021 to 2023 i.e., material prior to the 1st Supplementary Prosecution
Complaint and the Main Prosecution Complaint:
(a) The Petitioner's statements under PMLA were recorded on
04.02.2021 and 05.02.2021;
(b) The searches at the premises of M/s Vedanta Farms (A40), M/s
Sunrise Farms (A41) were conducted on 04.02.2021 and 05.02.2021.
(c) The Provisional Attachment Order No. 07/2023 by which
immovable properties in the name of the Petitioner's partnership firms (A40
and A41) is dated 29.05.2023 and the same was confirmed by Learned
Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 08.11.2023.
(d) The SFIO Complaint under Section 447, Companies Act, 2013,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
against the Petitioner and other accused filed on 09.09.2022 (SFIO
Complaint);
(e) The list of RUDs accompanying the 2nd Supplementary PC
contains witness statements and documents entirely dating from 2021 to
2023.
27. Thus, relying on the above facts, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that no fresh oral or documentary material has been
collected against the Petitioner; in fact, the Enforcement Directorate relies
entirely on material that was already collected and considered by the
Enforcement Directorate at the time of filing of the Main Prosecution
Complaint and the 1st Supplementary Prosecution Complaint. No
explanation has been given by the Enforcement Directorate for arraigning
the Petitioner in the 2nd Supplementary Prosecution Complaint based on
older material already in its possession at the time of filing of the previous
Prosecution Complaints.
28. On the contrary, Enforcement Directorate denied the contention of
the petitioner that only ‘stale material’ was referred to. The counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate submitted that the 2nd Supplementary Complaint
dated 06.11.2024 is based on the complaint filed by the Serious Fraud
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
Investigation Office (SFIO) under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013,
before the Special Court at Chennai on 09.09.2022 (Spl.CC.No. 01/2023).
This SFIO complaint constitutes fresh and new material that forms the basis
of the present supplementary prosecution complaint under the PMLA.
29. The material particulars establishing that the SFIO complaint is
new material are as follows:
(a) The SFIO complaint was filed on 09.09.2022, which was after the
searches conducted in February 2021;
(b) The ECIR in the present case was initially registered on
27.12.2019 based on the CBI FIR;
(c) The ECIR was subsequently amended by way of Addendum dated
10.06.2024, specifically incorporating the SFIO Complaint as a scheduled
offence;
(d) The SFIO complaint brought forth new allegations regarding
corporate fraud, falsification of accounts, and violations under the
Companies Act, 2013, which constitute a separate scheduled offence under
the PMLA;
(e) The forensic audit report conducted by M/s.Haribhakti & Co.,
which forms part of the SFIO proceedings, constitutes fresh documentary
evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
30. The Enforcement Directorate further submitted that the Petitioner
has failed to appreciate the distinction between "pre-existing evidence" and
"new material/fresh evidence." The SFIO complaint, though based on
transactions that occurred in the past, constitutes a new scheduled offence
that came into existence only on 09.09.2022. This is fresh material for the
purposes of the PMLA investigation.
31. It was also submitted that money laundering is a continuing
offence and the very nature of this offence permits investigation into various
layers of transactions, shell companies, and interconnected entities that are
used to launder the proceeds of crime. The SFIO complaint revealed
additional entities, transactions, and modus operandi that were not part of
the original investigation based solely on the CBI FIR.
VI. RELIANCE ON MARIAM FASIHUDDIN CASE:
32. The aforesaid reply submitted by Enforcement Directorate was
further met with a contention by the Petitioner on the ground that
Enforcement Directorate had access to the SFIO Complaint for two years
prior to the filing of the 1st Supplementary Prosecution Complaint, in which
the Enforcement Directorate had decided not to arraign the Petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
Reliance was placed on Enforcement Directorate's averment in Paragraph
3.2 of the 1st supplementary PC (Page No. 476 of the Annexed set of
Documents - II ) which clearly states that the SFIO complaint formed the
basis of the said supplementary PC and also warranted an amendment
dated 10.06.2024 to the original ECIR.
33. Therefore, there was no fresh material against the Petitioner that
the Enforcement Directorate unearthed between the 1st Supplementary
Prosecution Complaint and the 2nd Supplementary Prosecution Complaint
and the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mariam Fashuddin
ought to apply in the present case as well.
34. However, Enforcement Directorate submitted that the decision in
Mariam Fashuddin is factually distinguishable. Emphasis was placed on
Para No.38 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
"38. It is a matter of record that in the course of
'further investigation, no new material was
unearthed by the investigating agency. Instead,
the supplementary charge-sheet relies upon the
Truth Lab report dated 15-7-2013, obtained by
Respondent 2, which was already available when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
the original charge-sheet was filed..."
34. It was further substantiated by Enforcement Directorate that facts
in Mariam Fashuddin are entirely different from the present case through the
below mentioned factual differences;
i) The supplementary charge sheet was based on a report (Truth Lab
report) that was already available at the time of filing the main charge-
sheet;
ii) There was mere re-evaluation of existing material without any fresh
investigation;
iii) No new evidence, oral or documentary, was brought on record.
35. In stark contrast, in the present case:
(a) The SFIO complaint itself is a new scheduled offence that was
registered on 09.09.2022;
(b) The forensic audit report by M/s Haribhakti & Co. constitutes fresh
documentary evidence;
(c) The investigation was extended based on this new scheduled
offence, not merely a re-appreciation of old material;
(d) The Addendum to ECIR dated 10.06.2024 specifically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
incorporated the SFIO complaint as a fresh predicate offence;
(e) The supplementary complaint reveals new entities (A-28 to A-42),
new transactions, and expanded scope of money laundering activities.
36. Hence the SFIO complaint is not a mere re-evaluation of existing
material but constitutes fresh evidence obtained during the course of further
investigation.
37. In light of the above submissions, this Court finds that the SFIO
complaint dated 09.09.2022 constitutes fresh and new material and that the
supplementary complaint is not based on stale material and that the
decision in Mariam Fashuddin is distinguishable and does not apply to the
facts of the present case and hence the supplementary complaint is legally
maintainable under Section 44(1) read with Explanation (ii) of the PMLA.
38. Therefore, from the above arguments, it can be deduced that the
underlying transactions or events occurred in the past does not render the
SFIO complaint "stale." Hence this court finds merit in the argument that the
scheduled offence itself (i.e., the SFIO complaint under Section 447 of the
Companies Act) is a new development and cannot be termed as stale
material.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
39. For the reasons aforesaid, we find that the impugned order dated
17.02.2025 in Spl.C.C.No.9 of 2022 on the file of the XIV Additional Special
Court for CBI cases need not be interfered with. Consequently, this Court
concludes that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed with the case on merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made on facts.
40. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed. No
costs.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.)
19-11-2025
gd
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
To
1.The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
Zonal Office-I, Govt. of India, Ministry
of Finance, No.2, Kushkumar Road,
BSNL Administrative Building, 5th
and 6th Floor, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
gd
CRL RC No. 1541 of
19.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:47:23 pm )
