Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Discharge Petition In PMLA Case Linked To Illicit Granite Quarrying Allegations
The Petition before the High Court was a Criminal Revision Case challenging the dismissal of a discharge Petition filed by the Petitioner.
Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court delivered a split verdict in a discharge Petition in a PMLA case linked to granite quarrying allegations.
The Petition before the Court was a Criminal Revision Case challenging the dismissal of a discharge petition filed by the Petitioner where the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had taken cognizance of an offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornim saw Justice GR Swaminathan allow the revision, set aside the Trial Court's Order, and remit the case, whereas Justice R Poornim dismissed the revision, upholding the Trial Court's decision stating that there was prima facie material available to frame charges.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhry appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General ARL.Sundaresan represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The case stemmed from alleged criminal activity related to illicit granite quarrying in the Madurai District,
The ED alleged that Olympus Granites Private Limited (OGPL), represented by the Petitioner who was the director of the said compnay, was engaged in illegal granite mining outside their leased area, used excess transport permits for illegally mined granite, conspired with government officials, forged documents, and caused a wrongful loss of Rs. 256.44 Crores to the government, constituting the proceeds of crime.
It was further alleged that the Petitioner allegedly acquired properties worth crores using the proceeds of crime.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice GR Swaminathan stated that the Trial Court's Order dismissing the discharge Petition was "virtually non-speaking" and "vitiated by non-application of mind". Therefore, he held that the Trial Court's Order was perverse.
“By saying so, I am not for a moment giving a clean chit to the revision petitioner. I would not even remotely remark that the conclusions arrived at by my esteemed Sister Judge are incorrect. I am not able to agree with the order proposed by my learned Sister only for the reason that there should be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court under Section 227 of Cr.Pc in the first instance before it is tested in revisional jurisdiction,” Justice GR Swaminathan held.
Justice GR Swaminathan set aside the Trial Court's Order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Justice R Poornima, on the other hand, held that there was prima facie evidence against the Petitioner to proceed under PMLA and other offences. She stated that at the stage of framing charges (or considering discharge), the Court only needs to see if materials reasonably connect the accused to the crime, not conduct a detailed trial or weigh evidence.
Justice R Poornima held, “No Investigation has been done by Investigating Officer with regard to the said documents. Only the Investigating Officer in the predicate offence has been cited as a witness. In the absence of any independent investigation done by the Investigating Officer under the PMLA, the complaint is based on no evidence…The enforcement authority relied upon the confession statement of the accused as relied upon documents in the PMLA, which is against section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The alleged references cannot be proved before a Special Court under PMLA.”
Justice R Poornima explained, “To conclude, we hold that in a criminal case, the accused will be discharged only on the following cases : i. Where the evidence produced is not sufficient, ii. Where there is no ground for proceeding against the accused, iii. Where no sanction has been obtained, iv. Where the prosecution is clearly barred by limitation, v. Where he is precluded from proceeding because of the prior judgement of the High Court”
Consequently, Justice R Poornima ordered, “We find that there was prima facie material available to frame charges, we find no merit in the Criminal Revision Case and hence, the Criminal Revision Case is deserves to be dismissed.”
Cause Title: S. Nagarajan v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: Crl.RC(MD)No.1025 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhry
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General ARL.Sundaresan; K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General
