Gujarat High Court
Hitesh Gordhanbhai Gorasiya @ Hitesh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1879 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1886 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1889 of 2025
==========================================================
HITESH GORDHANBHAI GORASIYA @ HITESH GORASIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. Learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma and learned Advocate Mr.Rajesh Kanani waives service of Rule on behalf of the respective parties.
2. The applicant by way of the present revision application under the provisions of Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS" for the sake of brevity) is challenging the order dated 20.08.2025, passed below Exh-36 by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge and Designated Special Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (Rural) in PMLA Case No.9 of 2023, rejecting the discharge application preferred by the present applicant vide Exh-36.
Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined
3. Facts of the prosecution in nutshell is that:-
(A) The instant case under the PMLA was initiated inter-alia on the basis of FIR No. 06/2018 dated 21.07.2018 registered by the CID Crime Police Station, Surat against SatishKumbhani, Dhaval VijaybhaiMavani and others. Brief Summary of the said FIR is that based on the complaint dated 21.07.2018 filed by one Ashwinbhai Valjibhai Limbasiya, the said FIR bearing No. 1-06/2018 dated 21.07.2018 under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120B of IPC, 1860; Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interests of Depositors (G.P.I.D) Act, 2003; and Section 4,5 & 6 of the Prize Chit Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, was registered by the CID(Crime), Gujarat Police, Surat against the Owners, Promoters, and Directors of Manav Digital Marketing Company, Bitconnect Coin and Bitconnect X Company for hatching a criminal conspiracy for, inter-
alia, collecting money and Bitcoin from the general public without obtaining any permission from the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") and by not returning payments/returns as promised. The names of the accused in said FIR bearing No. 1-06/2018 dated 21.07.2018 are (1) Sh. SatishKumbhani, (2) Sh. DivyeshDarji, (3) Sh. DhavalMavani, (4) Sh. Suresh Gorasiya and other unknown persons.
Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined (B) As per said FIR No. 06/2018 dated 21.07.2018, SatishKumbhani, DivyeshDarji, DhavalMavani, Suresh Gorasiay the Owner/Promoters/Directors of "Manav Digital Marketing Company" and Bit-connect Coin and Bit-connect X Company, as per a criminal conspiracy, without obtaining any permission from the R.B.I. for the purpose of collecting monies from the general public in the form of cash and Bitcoins floated Bit-connect Coin & Bit-connect X Coin companies; promised to pay higher returns in short period of time and to give good referral commission to the clients- investors in the company, who might get further investments from other persons. By doing so, the accused dishonestly induced the investors to invest their money and Bitcoins in Bitconnect Coin and later, neither returned the investments made by investors amounting to INR 1,14,37,300/-, nor the interest on the said investments as promised.
(C) In the said FIR No. 06/2018 dated 21.07.2018, three chargesheets were filed by the CID Crime Police Station against Divyesh DhansukhlalDarji, SatishKumbhani Suresh Gorasiya, RakeshSavani, DhavalMavani and Gautam @ Ganesh Lathiya for offences u/s 409, 406, 420, 120B and 201 of IPC, 1860; Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interests of Depositors (G.P.I.D) Act, 2003; Section 4,5 & 6 of the Prize Chit Money Circulation Scheme Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined (Banning) Act, 1978; and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The brief of the said chargesheets is as follows:
(D) Accused namely SatishKumbhani, DivyeshDarji, Suresh Gorasiya, RakeshSavani, DhavalMavani and Ganesh @ GautamLathiya, under a criminal conspiracy, established the following entities in the year 2016-17:
i) Bitconnect Limited, having its Registered Office situated at: The Panorama, Park Street, Ashford, U.K. TN24 8EZ.
ii) Bitconnect International P.L.C., having its Registered Office at: Grand Thornton House, 22, Melton Street, Kings Cross, London, U.K. NW1 2EP.
iii) Bitconnect Trading Limited, having its Registered Office at: 23, St. Elizabeth Avenue, Butler, U.K. L20 6FA.
E. The accused persons on 09.02.2016, got registered a website viz Bitconnect.co for which domain name was taken from Namechip Server situated at Phoenix City, Arizona, Divyesh DhansukhlalDarji was declared as the National Level Promoter of Bitconnect Company.
Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined F. Accused SatishKumbhani assigned the work of development of the website viz Bitconnect.co of Bitconnect Company to another accused DhavalMavani.
G. The Owner, Promoters, Manager and Directors of "Manav Digital Marketing", Bitconnect website and Bitconnect Coin, and all the accused namely SatishKumbhani, DivyeshDarji, DhavalMavani, Ganesh PopatbhaiLathiya, RakeshSavani and Suresh Gorasiya, hatched a well-managed Criminal Conspiracy and without getting any type of approval from the R.B.I. for collecting money from the Public/Investors, collected money (INR) in cash and Bitcoins. The said accused had promised investors to pay high interest/returns in a short time and also referral commission in case if a client who had made investment in the Company, gets some other person to make investment. The accused persons floated different investment plans for making payment of interest to the investors at the rate of 0.5% to 2% on a daily basis. The accused persons advertised these plans on Bitconnect Company's Web-site, on YouTube Channel as well as other Social Sites, whereby they made wide publicity amongst Investors, by online show of such fascinating/alluring/tempting advertisement to attract huge investments by gaining confidence of the Investors. By doing so, the accused persons successfully got investments worth Crores of Rupees in Bitconnect Company Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined by gradually increasing the price of Bitconnect Coin virtually. In the month of January, 2018, the accused persons had suddenly closed their website and the price of Bitconnect Coin came down to almost zero and thereby caused huge financial loss to the investors.
H. The said Bitconnect and Bitconnect X websites' Owner, Manager Promoters and Directors had deactivated the Indian Web-sites of Bitconnect Company and BitconnectX Company (Bitconnect.in) in the year of 2018 with an intention to destroy the evidence. Accused Satish Kumbham, who was having Facebook Account in his own name on which posts were uploaded in respect of Bitconnect Coin, closed/de-activated the said Facebook Account for the purpose of destruction of the evidence. Moreover, DhavalMavani, another accused broke and threw away his laptop for the purpose of destroying the evidence regarding Bitconnect Coin.
I. As per the chargesheet bearing No. 04/2020 dated 13.11.2020 filed in the said FIR No. 06/2018 dated 21.07.2018, the accused persons collected investments in the investment scheme of Bitconnect Coin, to the tune of INR 19,61,02,735/- approx. from the investors by cheating and dishonestly inducing the investors and deceiving them to deliver the investments to the accused persons. Further, Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined amount to the tune of INR 40 crores to INR 50 crores in cash was also raised by the accused persons through Ganesh @ GautamLathiya from the investors in Bitconnect Coin. Therefore, as per the said charge sheet, the accused persons acquired the proceeds of crime to the tune of INR 69,61,02,735/- approximately.
J. Another FIR No. 03/2018 dated 19.05.2018 was registered by the CID Crime Police Station against Shailesh Babulal Bhatt and others in connection with the extortion of cryptocurrencies and cash (INR) from DhavalMavani (accused in FIR No. 06/2018 dated 21.07.2018). As per the chargesheets filed in the said FIR No. 03/2018 dated 19.05.2018, ShaileshBabulal Bhatt and other accused persons extorted 2091 Bitcoins, 11,000 Litecoins (equivalent to 166 Bitcoins) and INR 14.5 crores cash from DhavalMavani on 01.02.2018. The said 2091 Bitcoins having total value of INR 127,96,92,000/- (as per the then market rate of 6.12 Lacs per Bitcoin): 11000 Litecoins equal to 166 Bitcoins having total value of INR 10,15,92,000/- (as per the then market rate of 6.12 Lacs per Bitcoin); and an amount of INR 14,50,00,000/- in Cash was also a part of the investments received by accused persons in FIR No.06/2018 dated 21.07.2018 against the sale of Bitconnect Coin. Accordingly, the proceeds of crime totaling to INR 152,62,84,000/- (as per the then market rate of 6.12 Lacs Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined per Bitcoins) was acquired by Shailesh Bhatt and his accomplices by extorting the same from DhavalMavani (accused in FIR No.06/2018 dated 21.07.2018.
K. Considering the nature of proceeds of crime generated, possessed and acquired by the accused persons in the form of Cryptocurrencies, the actual quantum of the process of crime is way too high and yet to be ascertained. As per the investigation conducted so far, the Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad, has seized and attached huge amount of the process of crime.
L. In the Prosecution Complaint bearing No.PMLA/09/2023 filed before Learned PMLA Court various properties of the persons associated came to be attached vide PAO No.06/2021 dated 25.10.2021 and were arraigned as an accused.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Ansin Desai, along with Mr. Rahul Dholakia and Mr.Pravin Gondaliya, learned counsel for the applicants. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned advocates are to the effect that:-
i) The Ld. Special Judge gravely erred in rejecting the Applicant's discharge application without appreciating that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA requires that Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined the person must have "knowingly assisted or knowingly been involved in any process connected with proceeds of crime. That in the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that the Applicants had the requisite knowledge or mens rea in relation to the alleged proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that mere possession of funds, without knowledge of their tainted character, cannot satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA.
ii) Learned advocates would submit that the Applicants are not an accused in the scheduled offence(s) forming the predicate for the present PMLA proceedings, despite this, the Applicants have been arraigned as accused in the PMLA complaint solely on the basis of ownership of immovable property, which was allegedly purchased by the original accused in the name of the applicants.
iii) The impugned order ignores the principle that mere possession of property allegedly derived from crime, without knowledge of its tainted origin, does not amount to money laundering. That Section 3 of the PMLA specifically uses the term "knowingly", thereby making mens rea an indispensable ingredient, therefore, the impugned order fails to examine this aspect.
iv) Though the PMLA Act cast duty on the accused to Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined prove the non-existence of a case against him and the burden of proof lies upon him, however, in view of the settled proposition of law, this does not discharge the prosecution from its initial burden to prove that requisite and necessary ingredients so as to constitute an offence as alleged are made out in the facts of the present case.
v) That none of the grounds raised in the memo of the application before the trial Court, are considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
vi) That on bare perusal of the impugned order, it records only the contentions raised by the Enforcement Department. However, there are no independent findings as to why the application is rejected. Thus, merely re-
production of the contentions does not reflect application of mind.
vii) That the trial Court while rejecting the application of discharge as conclusively arrived at a finding as if the applicant is guilty which is contrary to the settled principle of law.
viii) That the trial Court has not assigned any independent factual reasons to the contentions raised by the parties. However, as merely produced the contents of Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined the affidavits filed by the Enforcement Directorate which reflects non application of mind.
ix) That even otherwise, there are no allegations against the present applicants of the scheduled offences.
x) That on bare perusal of the complaint, the allegations levelled against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, but does not speak about any offence being committed by the present applicants.
xi) Thus, it is argued that no knowledge neither mens rea nor any averments are made in the complaint to attract the provisions of PMLA and no charge can be framed against the present applicants, despite of having explained, as to how, they have acquired the attached property.
xii) Even otherwise, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1, 2 and 3 have purchased the property in the names of the present applicants and the said aspect is not consider by the trial Court, while rejecting the application of discharge and there are contrary finding to the effect that the present applicants had knowledge which is based on assumption and presumption. Lastly, it is argued that since, the provision of PMLA Act are drastic, the Court has to be more careful and extra cautious and having Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined failed to do so, the trial Court have committed grave error in not allowing the discharge application which required to be set aside by this Court, and as thus, prayed to allow the present applications.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Rajesh Kanani and Learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that the trial Court has passed well-reasoned order and having found a strong prima facie case against the present applicants and having found sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial and frame the charge has correctly rejected application Exh-36. Under the circumstances, the applicant having failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court apparent on the face of the record, hence no interfere is required at the hands of this Court and has argued to reject the present applications. It is further stated that, no roving inquiry is permitted while framing of the charge and the Court can only rely on the chargesheet papers and no other material can be considered and having found ample material to arraign the present applicants as accused has correctly passed the impugned order, though the case may not strictly fall under the Scheduled Act, as held in the case of Vijay MadanLal Chaudhary Vs. Union of India SCC 1 SC929. The application of the present applicants came to be rejected by the trial Court after having found that there are no compelling legal grounds in application Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined Exh-36, and thus, it is argued that the trial Court has found that the Enforcement Directorate has a strong prima facie case from the papers of the chargesheet and having found sufficient evidence collected by them for framing of charge, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application, more particularly, when the applicants have failed to prove to give any satisfactory reasons or explanations regarding the property alleged to have been purchased from the proceeds of crime money. Under the circumstances, has argued to reject the present application.
6. At the outset, the scope of hearing at the time of framing of charge is concerned, it would be apt to refer to the case of K.H Kamaladini Vs State reported in 2025 Online 1176 wherein Para 9 , it is thus held:-
"In this case, the appellants sought discharge. The prayer for discharge was rejected by the Special Court. Therefore, a revision application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC was preferred by the appellants. As far as, the scope of hearing at the time of framing of the charge is concerned, the law is well settled. Firstly, at this stage, the Court can examine only the documents forming part of the Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined chargesheet, and no other material can be considered. Secondly. after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exist a sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the appellants. Thirdly, at this stage, the Court cannot shift the evidence forming a part of the chargesheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff.
Fourthly, if the Court is of the view that the evidence without cross-examination or rebuttal shows that the accused has not committed any offence, then an order of discharge must be passed. Lastly, if the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will not discharge the accused."
7. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the impugned order below Exhibit -36. The issue of whether the applicants had used the proceeds of crime for acquiring the property is under consideration before this Court. It is an undisputed fact that the present applicants are not the accused of having committed crime, attracting the scheduled offence. It is also an admitted position that the attachment order at Annexure-F of the Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined application which runs into 155 pages is not challenged by the present applicants and which also forms part of the chargesheet. It is also an undisputed fact that from reading of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the source of information, attracting the present case arises out of FIR CR-I 03/2018 dated 19.05.2018, registered by the CID Crime, Surat Zone, Police Station, Surat and FIR CR-I 06/2018 dated 21.07.2018, registered by the CID Crime, Surat Zone, Police Station, Surat.
8. As far as, the PMLA Special Case No.09 of 2023 is concerned, the same runs into 57 pages. It also transpires from the complaint at page 22 that Shri Gordhan Goraeal disclosed that his owner, Shri Suresh Gorasiya can give further information in this regard. The properties in the name of Hitesh Gorasiya are stated on Page 23, various statements of Suresh Gorasiya , Hitesh Gorasiay, Satish Kumbhani, Gordhan Gorasiay, DivyeshDarji, and the manner in which utilization or diversion of proceeds of crime came to be applied for purchaisng of the alleged property is concerned, is also stated on Page 20 onwards.
9. The summary of evidence to prove that the accused and the properties are involved in Money Laundering are stated in Para 7 (page 30 onwards). The respective roles of the accused, after carrying out the Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined investigation, are stated in Para 9 (Page 34 onwards). More particularly, the Page 38 with regard to Gordhanbhai Gorasiya, Page 40 with regard to Hitesh Gorasiya, Page 41 with regard to Varshaben Vijaybhai.
10. Upon anxious consideration to the submissions and careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the applicants have failed to make out any case for interference in revisional jurisdiction. For the reasons, that despite the present applicants not directly charge for the offences of the Schedule offence under the PMLA Act, however, as per the prosecution's case, the applicants had played an enabling role in facilitating the use of proceeds of crime in purchasing the properties:-
(i) The charge against the present applicants also be evaluated in the light of the broader matrix of the facts, including non satisfactory explanation with regards to the acquisition property under question.
(ii) Not challenging the order of the adjudicating authority, which also forms part of the chargeseet.
(iii) No payments against the cheques by Shri Gordhanbhai Gorasiya dated 24.06.2017 for Rs.10,87,500/-, each again (Cheque Nos.492098, Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined 492099 and 492079).
(iv) Coupled with the fact that, Hitesh Gorasiya has also shown to have made payment of the properties under question, however, were reversed by the banks on the same day and as such no payment was made against the cheque which was in the tune of Rs.1,31,73,625/-, each dated 24.06.2017 which was total four cheques in number.
11. These aspects are supported by the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA Act, and the satisfactory linkages meet the threshold of prima facie satisfaction regarding the applicants' complicity. What has to be seen while framing of charges is that accepting the documents forming the chargesheet, no other material is required to be considered.
12. Secondly, after considering the material on record, the Court has to decide whether or not there exist sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial. Firstly, the Court cannot shift the evidence forming a part of the chargesheet with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. If the court is of the view, that evidence without cross- examination or rebuttal shows that the accused had not Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined committed any offence under such circumstances is only discharge order is required to be passed. And lastly, the evidence adduced before the Court creates a grave suspicion, the Court will not discharge the accused.
13. Thus, from the reading of the papers of the charge sheet, strong case made out. There exist sufficient grounds for proceeding with the applicants. The court cannot enter in to roving inquiry on the defence raised by the applicants. The existence of grave suspicion eliminates the possibility of discharge and the question of discharge falls flat on ground.
14. The investigative narrative indicates facilitation in using the tainted money forming part of proceeds of crime for acquiring the property and there exist a pattern to convert the tainted money for purchasing the property. Thus, when the applicants are facing serious charges which carry grave financial ramification and offence with well documented links to establish prima facie strong case against the applicants is made out. Normally, the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law and the revisional Court has to make the observations on the illegality, impropriety or irregularity committed by the lower Court and this Court is only to consider whether the evidence collected by the prosecution disclosed prima facie Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined case against the accused or not. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot appraise the evidence. It is the trial Court which has to decided whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused is made out, so as to making frame charge against the accused persons. More particularly, the provisions of revision do not confirm a right on a litigant to file revision, but the revisional power is only discretionary with the Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional court is conferred limited power to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of proceeding of order of the lower Court and are not to act like Appellate Court for the purpose of regarding of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. The findings recorded by the lower Court can be disturbed by the revisional Court only when there is some perversity. Even, when factual appreciation is involved the case must find in a case class resulting into perverse finding from the reading of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the finding by the trial Court are perverse. Merely, because the Ld. Sessions Judge in the impugned order, more particularly, at (Page 8, Para 7) has recorded a finding to the effect that the applicants-accused, knowingly assisted in activities connected with acquisition, possession of proceeds of crime. It cannot be said that the trial Court thus concluded that the applicants are guilty Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined from the offence.
15. On reading of the entire impugned order, more particularly, Para 10, it is stated that there is sufficient prima facie of evidence, so as to frame charge against the applicants. Thus, the trial Court has committed no serious error much less error of law apparent on the face of the record which requires interference at the hands of this Court.
16. As far as, the part of knowledge of the present applicants is concerned the Ld. Trial Judge in Para 9 has dealt with it and specifically stated that the contention with regards to no knowledge or having not dealt of proceeds of crime dealt intentionally, if consider in context with the nature of evidence brought on record by the Enforcement Department, the said aspect can be decided after recording of evidence. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse, since from the material on record strong prima facie case of involvement of the present applicants is to be established and nothing more than that.
17. As far as, the contention raised by the applicants before the trial Court is concerned, it is stated that the applicants has not committed any alleged crime attracting the provisions of PMLA Act, nor does the documents reveal Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined the second contention is that they are not arrested under the Scheduled offence and are add as an accused. The next contention is that they have cooperated in the investigation have not run away. The next contention was to the effect that no chargesheet is framed against the applicants under the Scheduled offence and no act of the applicants fall within Section 2(U) of the PMLA Act, and there is no mens rea, and there is no evidence on record that knowingly the applicants had purchased the property. If these contentions are taken into consideration the trial Court has recorded the reasons in Para 7, 8 and 9 to conclude that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to frame charge, merely, because the trial Court in Para 7 has recorded to the effect that the applicants-accused knowingly assisted in activity connected with the acquisition, possession and use of projection proceeds of crime. It cannot be said that the trial Court has held the accused guilty even before framing of charge. The statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA Act are taken into consideration. The manner in which proceeds of crime is utilized or diverted as recorded in the complaint and the papers appended there too, are also taken into consideration. The contention with regard to knowledge or intention, is recorded in Para 9 and as specifically stated that the aspect can be decided after recording of evidence to which this Court also concurs. Thus, considering the nature of allegations, charges, the Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1879/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined modus operandi, it cannot be said that, no case is made out against the applicants.
18. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ansin Desai states that in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal No.7958 of 2025) in the case of Tamil Nadu Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Another, the interim relief have been granted pending the review in the petition of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's judgment and has requested to stay the proceedings in the present case also.
19. It is required to be noted the facts of each case stands on different footing. This Court has not been appraised with the factual aspect involved in the cited order. Under the circumstances, the prayer as sought for granting interim relief and staying the proceeding is concerned cannot be acceded too, and the same stands rejected.
20. The present revision applications are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHD SAIF ULLAH Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:25:46 IST 2025