Jharkhand High Court
Bishnu Kumar Agarwala Alias Bishnu ... vs Enforcement Directorate on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:34674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 444 of 2025
-----
Bishnu Kumar Agarwala alias Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, aged about 57 years, son of Late Chiranjee Lal Agarwala, resident of Jhalda, P.O. Jhalda, P.S. Jhalda, District Purulia -723202 (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Enforcement Directorate, Ranchi through Additional Director, having its Zonal Office at Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road, Hinoo, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Airport, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ansuman Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate;
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate;
------
th C.A.V. on 29 October, 2025 Pronounced on 19/11/2025
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been filed under sections 438 and 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-
-cum- Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 registered for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA, 2002) whereby and whereunder, learned Court of Special Judge, PMLA Court, Ranchi has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 3 1 2025:JHHC:34674 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- -cum- Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.
2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that we have the heard learned counsel for the parties at length on different dates, which are being referred herein. Further, liberty, as prayed on behalf of parties to file written statement, was granted. In pursuant thereto, exhaustive written note of argument was filed on behalf of petitioner.
3. The matter was taken up on 25.07.2025, on which following order has been passed, which is quoted as under:
Order No. 02/Dated 25th July, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.
2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the ED, has submitted that since the case is coming for the first time, as such, he may be granted two weeks‟ time to file counter affidavit.
3. Time, as prayed for, is granted.
4. List this matter on 22.08.2025 under the appropriate heading.
5. In the meanwhile, let the counter affidavit be filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
4. Thereafter on 08.10.2025 matter was listed on Board and was heard but due to paucity of time, the argument 2 2025:JHHC:34674 advanced on behalf of petitioner could not be completed, for ready reference the order dated 08.10.2025 is being quoted as under:
Order No. 03 : Dated 8th October, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Ansuman Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner being assisted by Mr. Arpan Mishra.
2. Due to paucity of time, the argument advanced on behalf of petitioner could not be completed, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is adjourned to be listed on next Wednesday.
3. List this case on 15.10.2025.
5. The instant matter was listed on 15.10.2025 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length, for ready reference the said order is being quoted as under:
Order No. 04/Dated 15th October, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Ansuman Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Due to paucity of time, argument could not be concluded, as such, post this matter on the next working day, i.e., on 29.10.2025, within top five cases.
6. Thereafter, on 29.10.2025 the matter was finally heard at length and the matter was reserved and liberty was granted to the learned counsel for the parties to file written notes of argument by 4.11.2025, for ready reference the order dated 29.10.2025 is being quoted as under:
Order No. 05 : Dated 29 October, 2025th
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Argument concluded.
3. Order reserved.3
2025:JHHC:34674
4. As prayed for, the parties are at liberty to file written notes of argument by 04.11.2025.
7. In pursuance of the order dated 29th October 2025 the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the written notes of argument. The aforesaid notes of argument will be treated as part of the record and while deciding the instant matter the arguments made in the said "notes of argument" has been taken into consideration by this Court.
Factual Matrix:
8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the instant petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:
I. An ECIR bearing No. RNZO/10/2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 and investigation under the provisions of prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR being Sadar PS Case No. 399 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022 registered for the offences under sections 406,420,467,468, 447, 504,506, 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code since offences under sections 420 and 467 of IPC are Scheduled Offences under Part A of the Schedule of PMLA, 2002. On 01.09.2023, after completion of investigation in connection with aforementioned ECIR, the Directorate of Enforcement filed the 4 2025:JHHC:34674 Prosecution Complaint arraigning the petitioner as Accused No.9.
II. The Prosecution Complaint contained reference to the First Information Report being Sadar PS Case No. 399 of 2022 which was registered on the directions of the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed by order dated 28.6.2022. The said complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Punit Bhargava for fraudulently acquiring one acre of land situated at Cheshire Home Road, Plot No. 28, Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
III. It has been alleged that Rajesh Rai illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of the said Power of Attorney they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-.
IV. Puneet Bhargava further sold the said
land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal (present
5
2025:JHHC:34674
petitioner) through two Sale Deeds for a total amount of Rs. 1,80, 00,000/- (Two Sale Deeds dated 01.04.2021 for an amount of Rs. 1, 02,60,000/- and Rs. 77, 40, 000/-).
V. It is revealed that through the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed, Bharat Prasad and Puneet Bhargav is shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/- only an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- was paid from the account of Shiva Fabcons- one proprietorship firm of Punit Bhargava into the account of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Investigation further reveals that out of the said Rs. 25 lakh an amount of Rs.
18,00,000/- was immediately transferred to the Bank account of Green Traders, a partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain. VI. Further during the investigation, Surveys were conducted on 09.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 at the circle office Bargai Ranchi and office of Registrar of assurances Kolkata respectively and original register II/volumes containing the above entry were inspected, falsification of the original records were identified and the custody of original registers were taken. After obtaining permission the original registers were sent for 6 2025:JHHC:34674 examination by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar which confirmed the forgery and tampering in the above stated registers.
VII. Investigation thus revealed that the accused persons namely Afsar Ali, Md Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal [present petitioner], Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash, Punit Bhargava, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and they are involved in mass forgery. Further, during course of investigation three immovable properties were provisionally attached vide order dated 31.08.2023.
VIII. Based on the above, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR / RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 in connection with which the Prosecution Complaint dated 01.09.2023 was filed.
IX. The petitioner was arrested on 31.07.2023 and was enlarged on bail by this Court on 12.01.2024.
X. After investigation, the complainant ED filed a prosecution complaint U/s 45 of PMLA in which 7 2025:JHHC:34674 10 persons were made accused. Alongwith the said Prosecution Complaint, the Complainant Department provided a list of witnesses and list of Relied upon Documents collected during investigation.
XI. The complainant ED filed the prosecution complaint dated 01.09.2023 in ECIR No.
RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 making the present Petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, as Accused No.9. It has been alleged in the said Complaint dated 01.09.2023 that the petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal is the main beneficiary of the entire fraud and is an accused who habitually indulges in the activities connected with Proceeds of crime i.e. its acquisition, possession and concealment use and projecting and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. It is further alleged that the willful indulgence and habitual involvement in the activities connected with proceeds of crime is evident from the fact that he not only acquired the property admeasuring 1 acre at the Cheshire Home Road but also acquired two government properties by fraudulent means which are nothing but his criminal activities. The alleged allegations 8 2025:JHHC:34674 pertaining to the said three landed properties are as under: -
Cheshire Home Road Property- It is alleged by the complainant that an FIR No 399/2022 dated 08.09.2022 was registered alleging that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of the said power of attorney, they allegedly prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-
mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/-, Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. (Vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and Rs.
77,40,000/-). It has been further alleged by the complainant that the investigation has revealed that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has been assisted by Prem Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan and others in acquiring proceeds of crime in the form of landed properties and thereby committed the offence of money laundering.
9
2025:JHHC:34674
Pugru Land Property- It is alleged by the
complainant that the investigation has
established that the property situated at Khata no. 93, Plot no. 543, 544, 546 and 547, total area 9.30 acres acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was allegedly a government property (Khasmahal Land). It is alleged that the said property has been acquired by the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by allegedly influencing the government officials including the Ex-DC Chhavi Ranjan who allegedly helped him by suppressing and shelving all the official records and documents which established that the above property acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal Land). It is further alleged that this property has been in possession of Nazarat Hussain & his family without any grounds and has been in their occupation and later this land was taken on lease by Ramchandra Mukherjee effective from the year 1985 and the lease expired in the year 2014 after which, the lease of the above-stated land was not renewed in the name of any person. It is further alleged that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing and suppressing the facts and with 10 2025:JHHC:34674 the assistance of the accused Chhavi Ranjan and others purchased this Khasmahal land in an allegedly illegal manner and thereby committed the offence of money laundering.
Siram Land Property- It is alleged by the complainant that the investigation has established that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal allegedly in connivance with the accused Chhavi Ranjan acquired government property (property of the defence) admeasuring 5.883 acres, situated at M.S Plot no. 908, 851(P) and 910(P), Ward no. VI of Ranchi Municipality, Ranchi vide deed No 922 of 2018. It is further alleged that the then DC Chhavi Ranjan allegedly helped him by suppressing and overlooking all the official records and documents which established that the above property was acquired by the defence in the year 1949 by publishing it in a Gazette dated 03.08.1949. The matter regarding this land was allegedly pending in the court of the DC Ranchi and the accused Chhavi Ranjan was the DC Ranchi during material period who allegedly extended undue favors deliberately to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and passed orders favourable for 11 2025:JHHC:34674 him and thus committed the offence of money laundering.
XII. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence upon the present prosecution complaint dated 01.09.2023 was taken vide order dated 04.09.2023.
XIII. Consequent to the aforesaid on 19.07.2024, the petitioner filed a discharge application under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, /250 BNSS 2023 before the Special Judge PMLA Court Ranchi, praying for discharge on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner under offences of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002.
XIV. The learned Special Judge vide order dated 25.01.2025 has dismissed the said discharge application. XV. Thereafter, the learned Court of Special
Judge, PMLA Court, Ranchi vide order dated 04.02.2025 has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money 12 2025:JHHC:34674 Laundering Act, 2002, against which the present application has been filed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner:
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not produced material which would show that the petitioner has in any manner dealt with "proceeds of crime".
7. The learned Special Judge has also failed to appreciate that the petitioner cannot be said to even remotely be associated with the scheduled offence as mentioned in the ECIR as he is neither involved in any form of forgery or even has knowledge of the documents that were allegedly forged or manipulated.
8. The petitioner has been prosecuted on the basis of assumptions and surmises, and the officials of the Investigating Agency has totally overlooked the principle that there must be 'reason to believe' rather than mere assumptions that the offences alleged against the petitioner have actually been committed by him.
9. It has further been submitted that from the records it is evident that there is no cogent material to show the petitioner's involvement in forgery or manipulation of 13 2025:JHHC:34674 records and the case of the prosecution is also not supported with any material to show that the petitioner was aware that the deed of 1948 was forged.
10. The Learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had no involvement in forgery or manipulation of land records. Further, it has been well recorded that the complainant of the Complaint case no.
3111 of 2021 was frivolously exerting claim on the subject land thus nothing survived in relation to the predicate offence on the basis of which the ECIR was recorded.
11. The learned Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi has erred in not considering that a civil suit with respect to the title of the subject land is pending before Civil Court, Ranchi during pendency of which provisions under PMLA do not authorize the investigating officer to conclude, decide and hold the true owner of the property or even further presumption of the same being 'proceeds of crime'.
12. It has been submitted that as per the case of Directorate of Enforcement, three landed properties namely
(i).Pugru Land Property, (ii).Siram Land Property and
(iii).Cheshire Home Road Land Property are proceeds of crime as the activity of the present petitioner in purchasing these three properties in his own/company's name allegedly amounts to money laundering but as a matter of fact it cannot be said to be correct as the activity of the 14 2025:JHHC:34674 present accused in the purchase of these three landed properties are independent and separate activities having no connection with each other.
13. It has been submitted that from the complaint it is evident that the role of the present accused in purchasing these three landed properties are independent and separate from each other as Cheshire Home Land Property (Area-1 Acre, Deed Value - Rs. 1,80,00,000/-) (Popularly known as Cheshire home road property) was purchased on 01.04.2021 in the name of M/s Challice Real Estates LLP and M/s Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd.; and Pugru Land property:- Property (Area 9.30 acres, Deed Value Rs. 22,01,49,000/-) (Popularly known as Pugru property) was purchased on 08.08.2019 by M/s Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. Whereas, Siram Land property: Property situated (Area 5.88 Acre, Deed Value - 24,37,72.780/-) (Popularly known as Siram property) was purchased on date 07.02.2018 by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and his wife Mrs. Anushree Agarwal.
14. Submission has been made that neither of the above-mentioned properties namely Chesire Home Road Property, Pugru Property, and Siram Property is proceed of crime and further the present accused has purchased the above-mentioned properties independently and separately from each other in most bona fide manner and his office 15 2025:JHHC:34674 had taken all due diligence while entering into the transactions of purchase of these three properties.
15. It has been submitted that the present accused petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, being a businessman also deals in immovable properties and has an established system/framework under which he operates. As a matter of routine, as and when he wishes to purchase any property, his office takes all due diligence and after being satisfied, puts up the proposal to him and only upon his satisfaction of the status of the property and its commercial value, he takes a final decision. This process is adopted by them as a matter of routine procedure, to be followed in all cases involving the sale/purchase of property and the same has been duly explained by the present accused to the investigating agency and all the documentary evidence were also placed before the agency showing that the said three properties were neither proceeds of crime in terms of Section 2(u) of PMLA nor are involved in Money Laundering but the complainant has amalgamated three separate activities in the same complaint, which is contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C as also to the provisions of PMLA.
16. It has been submitted that petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal had purchased Cheshire Home land property through a registered sale deed no. 2784 and 2483 on 01.04.2021 in the name of his Company, namely, M/s 16 2025:JHHC:34674 Adarsh Height Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chalice Real Estate Private Ltd., respectively, and is having all the documents pertaining to title and ownership of the land. It has been submitted that the said property was handled in most bona fide manner and there is no material collected by the Agency during the investigation of the case to treat his property as "proceed of crime". Further, at the time of execution of sale deeds, the entire consideration amount for the purchase of the land of Cheshire Home was given to Punit Bhargava and the payment made to Punit Bhargava is also reflected in the Bank Statement of both the Companies, namely, M/s Adarsh Height Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chalice Ltd.
17. Further submission has been made that there is no evidence in the entire prosecution complaint to prima facie establish the allegation that the present accused had any knowledge about the said forgery with deed no. 184/1948 and absence of knowledge is further substantiated by the fact that Punit Bhargava during interaction in the office of the petitioner did not appear suspicious and had himself given adequate explanation that he wanted to sale the property due to Covid Pandemic and wanted to go back to his home town in Bihar.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that forgery in the deed no.184/1948 at Kolkata 17 2025:JHHC:34674 could not have been detected by the petitioner or his employee in due diligence as required to be carried out by any buyer and the petitioner had purchased above property above the circle rate with no cash transaction. The entire sale consideration of Rs.1.80 Crore was paid through banking channels from the legal income of the respective companies and all such transactions have also been reflected in the audited balance sheet and account books of the companies.
19. So far as allegation of forgery committed in deed is concerned, Bharat Prasad in his statement recorded u/s 50 of PML Act has given in details the manner in which the forgery was committed in various deeds at Kolkata as also the name of the persons involved in committing the act of forgery but he has not taken the name of this petitioner as being involved in the act of forgery in any manner.
20. So far property of Cheshire Home is concerned, it has been submitted that the dispute with respect to title and possession of the property is pending for adjudication in O.S. No.167 of 2021 filed by Umesh Gope and in absence of final adjudication of the Court of competent jurisdiction, provisions of PML Act do not authorize the Investigating Officer to conclude, decide and hold the true owner of the property and hence, the entire allegations made in the prosecution complaint pertaining to Cheshire Home land 18 2025:JHHC:34674 Property is premature and based on assumption and presumption of facts, which fall within the domain of Civil Court.
21. So far property in question at Pugru and Siram is concerned, it has been argued that there is no FIR registered by the Police for any schedule offence till date and in the absence of FIR/Police Investigation, the investigation of ED is premature and illegal in the eyes of law. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vrs. Union of India and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 929 and Prakash Industries Vrs. Union of India 2023 SCC Online Delhi 336.
22. Therefore, submission has been made that the schedule offence referred to in complaint dated 01.09.2023 in ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023 is not directly or indirectly connected with Purgu Land and Siram Land properties and hence, no investigation under PML Act could have been launched making FIR No. 399/2022 dated 08.09.2022 as the basis for collecting evidence alleging these properties to be proceeds of crime.
23. Further submission has been made that the present accused purchased the land at Pugru vide Registered Sale Deed No. 5629 dated 08.08.2019 from one Ashish Kumar 19 2025:JHHC:34674 Ganguly and the land, namely, Siram Property from Sanjay Ghosh and Mahua Mitra vide registered sale deed No. 1011/922 dated 07.02.2018 and the entire consideration amounts for purchasing these two properties were paid by the petitioner through the legal source of income and therefore, these two properties cannot be treated to be "proceed of crime".
24. It has been submitted that since there is no FIR under any schedule offence for these two properties, the entire allegations made by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its complaint dated 01.09.2023 is contrary to the provision of PML Act and the authorities under 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on a notional basis or on the assumption that the schedule offence has been committed unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional Police and/or pending inquiry/ trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. The Investigating Agency has finally conducted investigation on notional basis merely on assumption that a schedule offence has been committed qua Purgu Property and Siram land property and has also filed a complaint u/s 45 of PML Act on the basis of his entire investigation conducted in the absence of any schedule offence, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
20
2025:JHHC:34674
25. It has been submitted that apart from it, from the perusal of prosecution complaint, it would transpire that Directorate of Enforcement is heavily relying upon the statements made by the applicant as also by other co- accused recorded in terms of Sec. 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundry Act, 2002 and in this context, it is stated and submitted that it is by now well settled that the statements of the accused recorded in terms of Sec. 50 of PML Act would be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as also by Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
26. It has been submitted that once the materials purportedly emanating from the statement made u/s 50 of PML Act are taken out from the prosecution complaint and the Police papers supplied to the applicant, it would be seen that there is not a single material barring cogent evidence as against applicant. It would not be sufficient even prima-facie to give rise to a triable case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to indicate that the petitioner had any role in committing the offence of forgery committed at the Office of Registrar Assurance of Kolkata and has also failed to show even remotely that this petitioner had any menserea for acquiring the lands in question on the strength of forged document and therefore, this petitioner has not committed any offence u/s 3 punishable u/s 4 of PML Act.
21
2025:JHHC:34674
27. It is fairly well settled that mens rea, unless expressly excluded will have to be read into a penal statute. It has also been contended that the case of the prosecution rests upon the statements of the witnesses and accused persons which has been made under section 50 of the PMLA without any independent corroboration of the said statements through independent sources.
28. It has been submitted that in order to make out an offence under the provisions of the PML Act, 2002, it is obligatory upon the prosecution to produce material which should show that an accused has in any manner dealt with 'proceeds of crime' generated from the commission of the scheduled offence and in absence of any material showing that the petitioner had illegally gained property as a result of any criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence the order framing charge dated 04.02.2025 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
29. It has been contended that the learned Court below has failed to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case at the time of considering the discharge application and there is no cogent far less any legally admissible evidence against the petitioner and even if the entire evidence is taken on its face value the same 22 2025:JHHC:34674 does not give rise to even suspicion far less grave suspicion to proceed against the petitioner.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. Arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent:
31. It is submitted that the instant prosecution complaint dated 01.09.2023 filed against the Petitioner and other co-accused persons is backed by cogent evidence gathered during the course of investigation and not solely based on statements of the Petitioner as well as his accomplices. Further, there are ample pieces of evidence that prove that the Petitioner is involved in the offence of money laundering, which are further corroborated by the statements of witnesses and accused persons of the instant case. Hence, the averments that the Petitioner has no connection with illegal activities of the instant case are unfounded and liable to be dismissed.
32. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi after considering the active role of the petitioner in illegally acquiring landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi, has rightly dismissed the discharge application vide order dated 25.01.2025 and consequent thereto has 23 2025:JHHC:34674 rightly framed the charge against the petitioner vide order dated 04.02.2025. Hence, the averments of the petitioner are baseless and liable to be rejected.
33. Further submission has been made that learned Special Judge, after meticulously considering the material on record, has passed a detailed and reasoned order on 25.01.2025 by which the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and consequently charge has been framed on 04.02.2025.
34. It has further been submitted that the learned special court has come to the considered finding that sufficient materials exist to frame charges against the petitioner along with co-accused persons. The learned special judge specifically recorded that the petitioner was knowingly a party to the syndicate engaged in manufacturing forged deeds and fraudulently acquiring these government/defence properties at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi; Mouza Siram and Mouza Pugru, Namkum Anchal Ranchi.
35. It has been submitted that the petitioner paid Rs. 1,78,20,000/-to the accused Punit Bhargava in favour of his firm Shiva Fabcons in account No. 52580200000085 of Bank of Baroda, out of which an amount of Rs.1,01,57,400/- was transferred to the bank account of 24 2025:JHHC:34674 Jamini Enterprises, a firm whose beneficial owner is the co- accused Prem Prakash.
36. Further, the petitioner, acquired the said one-acre property by hatching a conspiracy and initially making Punit Bhargava the owner of the land admeasuring 1 acre at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi, which is a government land. Later, this land was acquired by the petitioner, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal who is the ultimate beneficiary of the said land.
37. It is humbly submitted that the offence of money laundering is a separate and independent offence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.UOI, 2022 SCC Online 729. Hence, it is not necessary that the accused of a predicate offence can only commit offence of money laundering, the set of accused in offence under PMLA could be different and which depends on activity or process such person is involved in pertaining to proceeds of crime.
38. It is submitted that the petitioner's attempt to rely upon the fact that he was not arrayed as an accused in the earlier complaint is misconceived, as the present case arises out of a distinct scheduled offence under FIR No. 399/2022. Further, the narration of FIR No. 399 of 2022 registered at Sadar Police Station, Ranchi is substantially correct as a matter of record. However, the plea that the 25 2025:JHHC:34674 dispute is of civil nature is misleading. The Final Form submitted in the FIR has no consequence on the independent proceedings under PMLA. Further it is submitted that further investigation in FIR No. 399/2022 is still pending, and hence the petitioner cannot take shelter under plea of civil dispute. Accordingly, it is submitted that the correct position stands established from the Prosecution Complaint and investigation records. Therefore, the attempt of the petitioner to dilute his role or project the matter as civil in nature is wholly misconceived and untenable.
39. Further, the plea of absence of proceeds of crime is wholly untenable in view of the categorical findings recorded in the Prosecution Complaint dated 01.09.2023 and the cognizance order dated 04.09.2023, wherein sufficient material was found against the petitioner regarding his role in acquiring, possessing and projecting as untainted the properties identified as proceeds of crime. The allegation of absence of mens rea is also baseless, as knowledge of the tainted origin of the assets stands established from the chain of transactions revealed during investigation, including the acquisition of Cheshire Home Road property, Pugru property, and Siram property.
40. It is submitted that the contention that the acquisitions of the three properties were independent and 26 2025:JHHC:34674 unconnected is not fit to be accepted. It is further submitted that this is a deliberate misrepresentation aimed at breaking the clear chain of the money laundering conspiracy. On the contrary, the investigation reveals a clear pattern that connects all three transactions as part of a single, continuous scheme. The petitioner, through corporate entities he controls, acquired these properties with proceeds of crime generated from scheduled offences and actively worked to project them as untainted.
41. The attempt to portray the said property as isolated events simply because they were purchased on different dates is misleading; this is a classic layering technique used to disguise an ongoing money laundering operation. The evidence establishes the petitioner's active and conscious role in acquiring and concealing these tainted assets, which goes far beyond a simple purchase and squarely attracts Section 3 of the PMLA. This argument was already considered and negated by the learned Special Judge while framing charges. As all three properties are part of the same laundering scheme, they are proceeds of crime as defined under the PMLA and are liable to confiscation.
42. The record demonstrates that the petitioner purchased the immovable properties in question, including the Cheshire Home Road property, the Pugru property, and 27 2025:JHHC:34674 the Siram property, which have been identified as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The investigation has clearly revealed that these acquisitions were funded through tainted money and are integrally connected with laundering activities.
43. Further, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgments in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and Prakash Industries vs Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 336, it is submitted that the reliance is wholly misplaced. These judgments do not apply to a case where a clear nexus between the scheduled offence and the laundered asset has been established. In the present matter, the evidence collected and statements recorded in relation to the Pugru property are directly relevant and admissible, as they pertain to the tracing and identification of proceeds of crime. Hence, the petitioner's submissions are untenable and devoid of merit.
44. It is further submitted that Section 3 of the PMLA, clearly states that 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 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- 28
2025:JHHC:34674 laundering. Hence, in light of the above, the case of the Petitioner is based upon cogent evidence to show his involvement, and then during the stage of considering of discharge application, only a prima facie case is considered.
45. The learned Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi after considering the active role of the petitioner in illegally acquiring landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi, which is backed by cogent evidences relied upon in the prosecution Complaint dated 01.09.2023, rejected the discharge application of the petitioner which is just and proper. Hence, the averments of the petitioner are baseless and liable to be rejected.
46. It is stated that in Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 2779/20223, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary that the accused for the offence of money laundering to be made accused of schedule offences and it is also pertinent to mention that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence. It is not necessary that the offender of money laundering necessarily need to be made accused or charge-sheeted in predicate offence. The offence of money laundering is a separate and independent offence. Hence, the averments of the petitioner are baseless.
47. It is submitted that the question of whether the accused being guilty or non-guilty is a matter of trial, and 29 2025:JHHC:34674 the same is to be seen through the evidence produced on record before the Special Court PMLA. While arresting an accused, the primary assumption that is to be made is whether there are sufficient reasons to believe that the person is guilty of the offence under section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA 2002. Therefore, in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, there were cogent reasons to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. The averments of the petitioner appear to be an attempt to portray himself as innocent and dissociate himself from his co-accused in order to aloof himself from the illegal activities for facilitating the illegal acquisition of government land. Thus, the averments of the petitioner are unfounded and liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216 held that Confessional statements can be considered if they implicate the maker substantially in the same extent as the other accused against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration. Thus, the learned Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi has rightfully rejected the petitioner‟s discharge application vide order dated 25.01.2025 and consequently the charges under relevant Section have been framed against the petitioner.
30
2025:JHHC:34674
48. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-ED, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a fit case where the impugned order to be interfered with. Analysis:
49. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and has also gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the case diary. We have also gone through the pleading made in the petition, the counter affidavit as also the written note of argument filed on behalf of parties.
50. It is evident from record that an ECIR bearing no. RNZO / 10 / 2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 and investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR being Sadar P.S. Case no. 399 of 2022 registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR being Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022 was registered on the directions of the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed vide order dated 28.06.2022. A complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Punit Bhargav and others for fraudulently acquiring one 31 2025:JHHC:34674 acre of land situated at Cheshire Home Road, Plot No 28, Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
51. It has been alleged that Rajesh Rai illegally and fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad on the strength of the said Power of Attorney they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs.1,78,55,800/- and Puneet Bhargav further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal (present petitioner) through two Sale Deeds for a total amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Two Sale deeds dated 01.04.2021 for an amount Rs.1,02,60,000/- and Rs.77,40,000/-).
52. Further during the investigation, Surveys were conducted on 09.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 at the Circle Office, Bargain, Ranchi, and office of Registrar of assurances Kolkata respectively and original register II/volumes containing the above entry were inspected falsification of the original records were identified and the custody of original registers were taken. After obtaining new permission the original registers were sent for examination by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar which confirmed the forgery and tampering in the above stated registers.
32
2025:JHHC:34674
53. Based on the above, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR / RNZO / 10 / 2023 dated 07.03.2023 and the Prosecution Complaint was filed on 01.09.2023, by the Directorate of Enforcement in which the petitioner was arrayed as accused no. 9 and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act, 2002 against the petitioner and other accused persons.
54. In the said prosecution complaint, the role of petitioner has been mentioned, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid prosecution complaint is being quoted as under:
"8.Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) and (3) of PMLA:
During investigation, statement of several persons (including witnesses and accused person) has been recorded under section 50 of PMLA, wherein it reveals that the accused persons are knowingly involved and are a party in the activities relating to the acquisition, possession, use, concealment, and projection of the proceeds of crime as untainted properties which are the ingredients of the offence of Money Laundering Activities as defined under section 8 of PMLA, 2002. The brief of such statements recorded under section 50 of PMLA, is as follows-
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal -
In his statement dated 09.11.2022 (Recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No 15) he was asked about the reasons for frivolously showing payment of Rs. 11.85 crores in deed dated 07.02.2018 between him and Mahua Mitra and 33 2025:JHHC:34674 Sanjay Ghosh (HUF) through its karta Sanjay Ghosh and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and Anushree Agarwal for purchasing a property acquired by army, situated at M.S Plot no. 851, and M.S Plot no. 908 of Ranchi Municipality at ward no. 6 admeasuring 5.5 acres with an old dilapidated house known as 'Dilkosh House', however, he gave evasive replies and was reluctant to furnish true information. He further sought time to fumish reply on the above. Investigation had revealed that Bishnu Agarwal acquired the army property by showing consideration amount 15 crores, although, the market value of the property/consideration was declared as Rs. 24,37,72,780/- in the deed dated 07.02.2018. However, he paid only Rs. 3 crores and falsely declared rest of the payments to be paid through cheques.
In his statement dated 11.11.2022 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No 16) he was again asked to furnish reasons for the false declaration that postdated cheques were given to the sellers which were to be encashed of Rs. 11.85 crores in which he again gave misleading answers and stated after possession. His statement further reveals that he had knowledge about the possession of defence on the said land but instead of this, he did not sought any clarification from defence or army about its true ownership and went ahead to acquire the said land in a deceitful manner.
From his statement dated 21.06.2023 (RUD No 17) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, it reveals that he acquired a land admeasuring to 9.3 acres situated at Plot no. 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, at Khata no. 93, Mauja Pugru, Ranchi in the year 2019 from one Ashish Kumar Ganguly (since deceased) and sixteen another parties. It was a disputed land having ongoing Itigations between the said Ashish Kumar Ganguly as one party and sixteen other claimants as second party. It again reveals from his statement that in this case too, he gave only Rs. 2.5 crores to Ashish Kumar Ganguly out of the consideration amount of Rs. 5 crores but frivolously declared in the registered deed that full payments were made to the sellers. Investigation has revealed that this was a Khasmahal land 34 2025:JHHC:34674 which was taken on lease Initially for thirty years by one W.S Hitchcock who was ex-IPS officer, then residing in Ranchi.
During course of searches, the mobile phone of Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was seized on 04.11.2022. During the scrutiny of the data extracted from the said mobile phone, several conversations between him and Chhavi Ranjan surfaced which also revealed about the proximity between these two persons. Several chats in relation to a land admeasuring to 9.3 acres situated at Plot no, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, at Khata no. 93, Mauja Pugru, Ranchi was also Identified. This land was a Khasmahal land and was acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing its nature, and Influencing Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi Chhavi Ranjan who overlooked the records, misused his position and extended favours to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal. During his statement under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 recorded on 31.07.2023, he was confronted with the said conversations wherein he tried to conceal the conversation with Chhavi Ranjan on the above matter. During his statement ts by stating that he did not remember whether he had done any dated 31.07.2023, (RUD No 18) he was also confronted with the draft letters he had forwarded to Chhavi Ranjan on which were subsequently signed and reverted back by Chhavi Ranjan over WhatsApp after minor modifications. On this, he gave evasive and unsatisfactory replies in order to conceal his association with the accused person Chhavi Ranjan.
He was arrested on 31.07.2023 and was subsequently remanded to the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement after being produced before this Hon'ble Court on 01.08.2023. In his statement dated 06.08.2023, (RUD No 201, he stated that he is a director of about 28 companies. He further stated that he used to have telephonic conversations with the then D.C, Chhavi Ranjan. He further stated that he had also conversations with Prem Prakash. His statement dated 06.08.2023 also reveals about his various companies and several persons who have been employed as directors of his companies. His statement dated 09.08.2023 (RUD No 21) reveals his knowledge about the acquisition of Siram property 35 2025:JHHC:34674 admeasuring 5.88 acres by the defence through a notification followed by publication of information about its acquisition in Gazette of Bihar dated 03.08.1949. His statement dated 09.08.2023 also reveals that he had WhatsApp chats with several persons on this issue and in the said chats, the copy of the Gazette of Bihar dated 03.08.1949, documents pertaining to the acquisition of the Siram land situated at M.S Plot no. 851, and M.S Plot no. 908 of Ranchi Municipality at ward no. 6, Siram, Ranchi were also shared by chats dated 26.09.2021. Yet, the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal kept concealing this fact in order to acquire and possess the property as stated above.
He was further asked about the role of his wife as Director of his companies on which he stated that he made her director as she is her wife and further due to the requirement of the director in a company.
Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA 9.1 The investigations under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 in FIR no. 399/2022 dated 08.09.2022 revealed that there is organized group of persons who are habitually involved in making fake deeds and falsifying original land records at Circle Offices and Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and with the help of said fake deeds, acquire and dispose properties in fraudulent manner.
9.2 Investigation reveals that such forgery is widespread and certain government officials are part of the said conspiracy. Various influential persons like Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Prem Prakash and others in connivance with senior government officials like Chhavi Ranjan are involved in acquisition of landed properties in Ranchi.
9.3 Investigation has revealed that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has been assisted by Prem Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan and others in acquiring proceeds ofcrime in the form of landed properties the details of which are given below-
36
2025:JHHC:34674 9.4 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of the said power of attorney, they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land measuring 1 acres to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. (Vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,40,000/-).
9.5 Thus, the FIR stated that the land admeasuring 1 acres, situated at Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi was acquired in a fraudulent manner by the above persons who indulged in fabricating documents and forging records, on the basis of which a power of attorney was fraudulently executed and subsequently the land was transferred to Punit Bhargava, who Immediately sold this land to Bishnu Agarwal, a businessman having interests in several avenues including real estate business.
9.6 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain,Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others prepared one forged deed of 1948 was prepared by the accused persons and on the basis of that a power of attorney was given in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice namely Lakhan Singh became the confirming party in the deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no. 2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 112 from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO, Ranchi. 9.7 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no. 2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book no. BK1, 37 2025:JHHC:34674 Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 77,40,000).
9.8 Investigation further reveals that though the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Rs. 25 lacs have been paid from the Bank of Baroda account of Shiva Fabcons, (account no.52580200000085) one of theproprietorship firms of Punit Bhargava into the SBI Account no. 31180122501 of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Further Investigation reveals that out of the said amount of Rs. 25 lacs, an amount of Rs. 18 lacs were immediately transferred to the bank account of Green Traders, a partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain (one of the accused arrested by this office on 14.04.2023 and presently languishing in Judicial Custody).
9.9 During investigation, surveys were conducted on 09.02.2023 (RUD No. 06) at the Circle office, Bargai, Ranchi and on 15.02.2023 (RUD No. 07) at the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata under section 16 of PMLA, 2002 and the original register II/volumes, containing the above entry were inspected and falsification of the original records were identified in the above documents. The custody of the original registers was taken from the Circle Office as well as from the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata after the permission of Hon'ble PMIA Court Ranchi under section 91 of Cr.PC. After obtaining due permission, the said original register was sent for by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar. The Directorate of Forensic Science has confirmed the forgery and tempering in the above stated registers.
9.10 During further investigation, it revealed that the accused persons namely Afshar All, Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and they are involved in mass forgery. It is also established that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has acquired other 38 2025:JHHC:34674 lands in frivolous manner with the help of government officials. 9.11 As stated above, investigation has established that the property situated at Khata no. 93, Plot no. 543, 544, 546 and 547, total area 9.30 acres acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal Land). And the said property has been acquired by the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by influencing the government officials including the Ex-DC Chhavi Ranjan who helped him by suppressing and shelving all the official records and documents which established that the above property acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal Land). Further, this property has been in possession of Nazarat Hussain & his families without any grounds and has been in their occupation. Later, this land was taken onlease by Ramchandra Mukherjee effective from the year 1985 and expired in the year 2014 after which, the lease of the above- stated was not renewed in name of any person. However, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing and suppressing the facts and by assistance of the accused Chhavi Ranjan and others purchased this Khasmahal land in illegal manner. 14 Specific Roles of the Accused persons in commission of offence of Money laundering 14.9 Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, S/o Chiranjee Lal Agarwal (Accused no. 9) - The accused person was a knowingly a party with the accused persons namely Afshar All Afsu Khan, Punit Bhargava Chhavi Ranjan Prem Prakash and others in acquisition of proceeds crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. The accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was also knowingly a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan, Ex D.C, Ranchi in acquiring property of the defence, government of India situated at Mauja Siram, Plot no. 908, 851 and 910, Ranchi having total area 5.883 acres by paying only 3 crores although the total consideration amount in the registered deed was frivolously declared as Rs. 15 crores. The accused person Bishnu Kumar Agarwal also became a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan and knowingly indulged 39 2025:JHHC:34674 in the process and activity connected with acquisition of another government property (Khasmahal land) situated at Plot no. 543, 544, 545 and 546, Mauja Pugru, Khata no. 93, Namkum Anchal, Ranchi admeasuring 9.30 acres. In this case also, only an amount of Rs. 2.45 crores were paid but, in the deed, a payment of Rs. 5 crores were fraudulently mentioned to be paid to one Ashish Chandra Ganguly (since deceased). In both cases, the accused persons namely Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and Chhavi Ranjan concealed facts and relevant documents that established the above properties were government properties. Thus, the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was knowingly involved in the acquisition of the above three properties in fraudulent manners which were nothing but proceeds of crime.
Hence, the accused person Bishnu Kumar Agarwal is involved in the activities connected with the acquisition, possession, concealment and use of the proceeds of crime and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the accused person Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is accordingly liable to punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
55. Thus, it appears from the prosecution complaint that the petitioner was knowingly a party with the accused persons namely Afshar Ali. Afsu Khan, Punit Bhargava Chhavi Ranjan Prem Prakash and others in acquisition of proceeds crime in the form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. Further, the present petitioner, namely, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was also knowingly a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan, Ex D.C, Ranchi in acquiring property of the defence, government of 40 2025:JHHC:34674 India situated at Mauja Siram, Plot no. 908, 851 and 910, Ranchi having total area 5.883 acres by paying only 3 crores although the total consideration amount in the registered deed was frivolously declared as Rs. 15 crores.
56. It is revealed that the accused petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal also became a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan and knowingly indulged in the process and activity connected with acquisition of another government property (Khasmahal land) situated at Plot no. 543, 544, 545 and 546, Mauja Pugru, Khata no. 93, Namkum Anchal, Ranchi admeasuring 9.30 acres. In this case also, only an amount of Rs. 2.45 crores were paid but, in the deed, a payment of Rs. 5 crores were fraudulently mentioned to be paid to one Ashish Chandra Ganguly (since deceased).
57. In both cases, from the prosecution complaint it appears that the present petitioner and other co-accused Chhavi Ranjan concealed the facts and relevant documents that establishes the above properties were government properties.
58. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs of the prosecution complaint it has come on record wherein it has been alleged that the present petitioner was knowingly involved in the acquisition of the above three properties in fraudulent manners which were nothing but proceeds of crime.
41
2025:JHHC:34674
59. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contention of Directorate of Enforcement that three landed properties namely (i) Pugru Land Property, (ii) Siram Land Property and (iii) Cheshire Home Road Land Property are proceeds of crime but as a matter of fact it cannot be said to be correct as the activity of the present petitioner in the purchase of these three landed properties are independent and separate activities having no connection with each other.
60. Per Contra the learned counsel for ED vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that, at the stage of considering the framing of charge only prima- facie material has to be ascertained and there is sufficient prima-facie clinching material available on the record, as such discharge application has been dismissed and consequent thereto charge has been framed against the petitioner.
61. In the background of the factual aspect and contention of the learned counsel for the parties noted hereinabove, the issues which require consideration are--
(i) Whether the order dated 04.02.2025 by which charges have been framed can be said to suffer from an error?
42
2025:JHHC:34674
(ii) Whether on the basis of the evidence which has been collected in course of investigation, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out or not?
62. Since both the issues are interlinked as such, they are taken up together.
63. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provisions of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent.
64. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
65. It is, thus, evident that Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money- laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering 43 2025:JHHC:34674 and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
66. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
"2 (1) (u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"
67. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.
68. In the explanation it has been referred that for removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of 44 2025:JHHC:34674 any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.
69. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
70. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.
71. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money 45 2025:JHHC:34674 Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:
"2(y) "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 offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."
72. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
73. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads 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 [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. [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 46 2025:JHHC:34674 continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying 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.]"
74. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money-laundering" means 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 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.
75. It is further evident that 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 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.
76. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
77. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench 47 2025:JHHC:34674 comprising of three Hon‟ble Judges of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
78. It is evident that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.
79. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a 48 2025:JHHC:34674 result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence"
will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.
80. In the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph 284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
81. Now, after having discussed the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the issue of various provisions of the Act, 2002, this Court, is proceeding to discuss the principle of framing of charge.
82. The purpose of framing a charge is to provide the accused with detailed information about the allegations 49 2025:JHHC:34674 against him. Framing of proper charge is one of the basic requirements of a fair trial. Charge is of great significance in a criminal trial as it helps not only the accused in knowing the accusation against him but also helps him in the preparation of his defence.
83. In a criminal trial the charge is the foundation of the accusation and every care must be taken to see that it is not only properly framed. At the initial stage of framing a charge the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be considered meticulously.
84. In a criminal trial the charge is the foundation of the accusation and every care must be taken to see that it is properly framed. At the initial stage of framing a charge the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be considered meticulously.
85. It is settled position of law that the accused is entitled in law to know with precision what is the law on which they are put to trial. Charges are framed against the accused only when the Court finds that the accused is not entitled to discharge under the relevant provision of CrPC/BNSS.
50
2025:JHHC:34674
86. In a Sessions case the Court shall frame a charge in writing against the accused when the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence as can be seen from section 252 BNSS. In warrant cases a charge shall be framed when a prima facie case has been made out against the accused as is evident from sections 263 and 269 of BNSS.
87. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharastra vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 has been pleased to hold if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused had committed the offence. It was further held that at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot look into the probative value of the materials on record.
88. Further, while considering the question of framing a charge, the Court has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose for finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. In exercising the power, the Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.
51
2025:JHHC:34674
89. The test to determine a prima facie case against the accused would naturally depend on the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down the rule of universal application and if the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial.
90. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that whenever the trial Court decides to frame charges, it is not necessary to record reasons or to do discuss evidence in detail.
91. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It was held that it is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence and a charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility about commission of the offence by the accused as against certainty.
92. It needs to refer herein that Sections 215 and 464 CrPC ensure that technicalities do not defeat justice. Both the sections lay that irregularity or error in framing a charge is not fatal unless the accused is able to show that 52 2025:JHHC:34674 prejudice is caused to him as result of such irregularity or omission. The object of section 238 BNSS is to prevent failure of justice on account of irregularity in framing of charge.
93. In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was a full and fair chance to defend himself.
94. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nathi Singh 2009 INSC 669, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court after considering the language of section 464 CrPC held that the burden is on the accused to show that a failure of justice has been occasioned on account of error, omission or irregularity of the charge.
95. Thus, framing of charge is not a mere empty formality. Every endeavour must be made in a criminal trial to ensure that appropriate charge is framed against the accused. Even though mere omission, error or irregularity in framing charges does not ipso facto vitiate trial, the accused should be made fully aware of the specific 53 2025:JHHC:34674 accusations against him in order to defend himself properly. Apart from safeguarding the interests of the accused, framing of proper charge also ensures that the interests of the victims and the society at large are safeguarded and no guilty person goes unpunished only on account of error in framing the charge.
96. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Dipakbhai Jagdhishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 16 SCC 547 was pleased to hold that:
"21. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the Court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of material before the Court is not to be meticulous in the sense that Court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made our for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material."
97. Thus from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements it is evident that at the stage of framing charges, trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. Marshalling of facts 54 2025:JHHC:34674 and appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of charge is not in the domain of the court. Charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion founded upon materials before the court which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused.
98. Ingredients of offences should be seen in the material produced before the court for framing of charges and duty of court at the stage of framing of charges is to see whether the ingredients of offences are available in the material produced before the court. Contradictions in the statements of witnesses or sufficiency or truthfulness of the material placed before the court cannot be examined at the stage of framing of the charge. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence. Court has to consider material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense and not for the purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion. „Presume‟ means if on the basis of materials on record, court can come to the conclusion that commission of the offense is a probable consequence, then a case for framing of charge exists.
55
2025:JHHC:34674
99. Roving and fishing enquiry at the stage of charges u/s 228 CrPC or discharge of the accused u/s 227 CrPC by the Sessions Judge and by the Magistrate u/s 239 or 240 CrPC is not permissible as it would amount to a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charges or discharging the accused and against all settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
100. It is well settled that at the time of framing of charge meticulous examination of evidence is not required, however the evidence can be sifted or weighed at least for the purpose of recording a satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out for framing charge to proceed in the case. Further the trial Court is not required to discuss the evidence for the purpose of conducting a trial but the discussion of the materials on record is required to reflect the application of judicial mind for finding that a prima- facie case is made out against the petitioner.
101. It is settled connotation of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the probable defence of the accused is not to be considered and the materials, which are relevant for consideration, are the allegations made in the First Information Report/complaint, the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of investigation, the documents on which the prosecution relies and the report 56 2025:JHHC:34674 of investigation submitted by the prosecuting agency. The probative value of the defence is to be tested at the stage of trial and not at the stage of framing of charge and at the stage of framing of charge minute scrutiny of the evidence is not to be made and even on a very strong suspicion charges can be framed.
102. Further it is settled position of law that at the stage of framing the charge, the trial Court is not required to meticulously examine and marshal the material available on record as to whether there is sufficient material against the accused which would ultimately result in conviction. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing the charge, the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be determined at the time of conclusion of the trial after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of framing the charge and, therefore, at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material.
103. It has been further held in the case of Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148, that mini trial is not expected by the trial court for the 57 2025:JHHC:34674 purpose of marshalling the evidence on record at the time of framing of charge. It has been held at paragraph no. 18 of the said judgment as under:--
"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record."
104. It is further settled position of law that defence on merit is not to be considered at the time of stage of framing of charge and that cannot be a ground of discharge. A reference may be made to the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191. For ready reference Paragraph no. 11 of the said judgment are quoted below:-- 58
2025:JHHC:34674 "11. While considering the legality of the impugned judgment [Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3468] and order passed by the High Court, the law on the subject and few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to. 11.1. In P. Vijayan [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 CrPC What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused.
It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380], one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under : (SCC p. 526) "25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application 59 2025:JHHC:34674 for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721], adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) „29. ... At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.‟"
105. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further dealt with the proper basis for framing of charge in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) wherein at paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 it has been held as under:--
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the 60 2025:JHHC:34674 existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
12. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404], a three-Judge Bench of this Court had observed that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasised.
14. In a later decision in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110] this Court, referring to several previous decisions held that : (SCC p. 342, para 7) "7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
106. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Palwinder Singh v. Balvinder Singh, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 850 has been pleased to hold that charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshaling and appreciation 61 2025:JHHC:34674 of the evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time.
107. Further it is pertinent to mention here that power to discharge an accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section itself. The power has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge who brings to bear his knowledge and experience in criminal trials. Besides, he has the assistance of counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor. He is required to hear both sides before framing any charge against the accused or for discharging him. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self-restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice which stares the court in the face. The opinion on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular matter as there are courts but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial. It would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Stree 62 2025:JHHC:34674 Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715.
108. Thus, while framing charges, the Court is not required to form a definite opinion that the accused is guilty of committing an offence. The truth of the matter will come out when evidence is led during the trial. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exist, the court would presume that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly and the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution.
109. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 CrPC. The principles which emerged therefrom have been taken note of in para 21 as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been 63 2025:JHHC:34674 properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."64
2025:JHHC:34674
110. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768, the above principles have been reiterated in para 17, 18, 28 to 31 and the Hon'ble supreme court has explained as to how the matters of grave suspicion are to be dealt with. The aforesaid paragraphs are quoted as under:
"17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 65
2025:JHHC:34674 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).
28. It is here that again it becomes necessary that we remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC. The principle established is to take the materials produced by the prosecution, both in the form of oral statements and also documentary material, and act upon it without it been subjected to questioning through cross-examination and everything assumed in favour of the prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no offence, as alleged, is made out against the accused, it, undoubtedly, would ensure to the benefit of the accused warranting the trial court to discharge the accused.
29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him. 66
2025:JHHC:34674
30. However, what is the meaning of the expression "materials on the basis of which grave suspicion is aroused in the mind of the court's", which is not explained away? Can the accused explain away the material only with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution? Can the accused rely upon material which he chooses to produce at the stage?
31. In view of the decisions of this Court that the accused can only rely on the materials which are produced by the prosecution, it must be understood that the grave suspicion, if it is established on the materials, should be explained away only in terms of the materials made available by the prosecution. No doubt, the accused may appeal to the broad probabilities to the case to persuade the court to discharge him."
111. In the case of Asim Shariff v. NIA, (supra), it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature 67 2025:JHHC:34674 of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
112. Recently, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657 has elaborately discussed the issue of framing of charge and has held in paragraph 27 which reads as under:
"27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge 14 and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge-sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 CrPC, the court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution."68
2025:JHHC:34674
113. Thus, from aforesaid legal propositions it can be safely inferred that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so and if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the trial Court shall frame the charge.
114. Therefore, the stage of discharge is a stage prior to framing of the charge and once the Court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed for framing of charge. At the stage of discharge, the Judge has merely to sift and weigh the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the prosecution or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame the charge against him and after that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to 69 2025:JHHC:34674 proceed, he will frame a charge and, if not, he will discharge the accused.
115. While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
116. It is considered view that at this stage of the instant case, the Court is only required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not because at the stage of framing of the charge and / or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible.
117. In the backdrop of aforesaid case laws and judicial deduction, this Court is now proceeding to examine the fact so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the evidence which has been collected in course of investigation and has been brought on record, as would be available in the impugned order prima facie case against the petitioner is made out or not?
118. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the petitioner was knowingly a party with the accused persons namely Afshar Ali Afsu Khan, Punit Bhargava Chhavi 70 2025:JHHC:34674 Ranjan Prem Prakash and others in acquisition of proceeds crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. Further, it has been alleged that the present petitioner, namely, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was also knowingly a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan, Ex D.C, Ranchi in acquiring property of the defence, government of India situated at Mauja Siram, Plot no. 908, 851 and 910, Ranchi having total area 5.883 acres by paying only 3 crores although the total consideration amount in the registered deed was frivolously declared as Rs. 15 crores.
119. Further, it has come that the accused person/petitioner Bishnu Kumar Agarwal also became a party with the accused Chhavi Ranjan and knowingly indulged in the process and activity connected with acquisition of another government property (Khasmahal land) situated at Plot no. 543, 544, 545 and 546, Mauja Pugru, Khata no. 93, Namkum Anchal, Ranchi admeasuring 9.30 acres. In this case also, only an amount of Rs. 2.45 crores were paid but, in the deed, a payment of Rs. 5 crores were fraudulently mentioned to be paid to one Ashish Chandra Ganguly (since deceased).
120. The accused persons namely Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and Chhavi Ranjan concealed facts and relevant 71 2025:JHHC:34674 documents that established the above properties were government properties. Thus, the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was knowingly involved in the acquisition of the above three properties in fraudulent manners which were nothing but proceeds of crime.
121. Thus, prima facie it has come in the investigation that the present petitioner knowingly acquired the proceeds of crime and their knowledge about the forgery committed with respect to acquiring the above said property is evident from the fact that they acquired the property at a throw away price and that too without paying the consideration amount which was mentioned in the deed.
122. Thus, prima facie it appears that the present petitioner knowingly acquired the proceeds of crime and their knowledge about the forgery committed with respect to acquiring the above said property is evident from the fact that they acquired the property at a throw away price and that too without paying the consideration amount which was mentioned in the deed.
123. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that prima facie- material is available against the present petitioner, as such charges have rightly been framed under the Section 3 of the Act 2002 against the petitioner.
124. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended that there is no evidence gathered 72 2025:JHHC:34674 by the prosecution and placed before the court to show that the present petitioner had any knowledge/ mens rea of the alleged fraud/forgery in acquisition of the said landed property.
125. The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA requires the mens rea of 'knowledge'. The prosecution is not required to prove a motive to commit the scheduled offence, but must demonstrate that the accused was knowingly involved in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. In the instant case, the petitioner's knowledge is overwhelmingly established prima facie by the evidence on record, including his direct WhatsApp communications and exchange of confidential draft orders with the then DC Chhavi Ranjan regarding the government lands, and the suspicious manner in which the Cheshire Home Road property was acquired. Therefore, the ingredient of mens rea is fully satisfied for the purpose of framing charges.
126. Further, in the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein that the mens rea is a state of mind and under criminal law, mens rea is considered as the guilty intention and unless it is found that the accused had the guilty intention to commit the crime, he cannot be held guilty for committing the crime, but the same cannot be assessed at this stage by this Court because same can only be 73 2025:JHHC:34674 adjudicated on appreciation of the facts, evidence and the documents which can only be appreciated in course of trial when the evidence will be led in this regard.
127. This Court has found substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent as the issue of mens rea can only be assessed by appreciating the evidence either documentary or oral and therefore, this Court is of the view that the issue of mens rea, will not be proper to be looked herein.
128. It has further been contended that the said three properties i.e. (i) Cheshire Home Road village Gari plot no. 28 khata 37, (ii) Defence land, Muja Siram plot 908,851, 910 (iii) khasmahal Mauja Pagru,Khata 93, plot 543-546, has been documented via separate deed chains, separate official records (defence/khasmahal vs private) and there is no unity of time, place consideration, vendor, funds, thus, under the standard for joinder of offences under the Cr.P.C., this fails the test of "same transaction". It has further been contended that the complaints anchor the scheduled offence narrative in the property no. (i) i.e. Cheshire property but it does not attribute a specific scheduled offence to property no. (ii) and (iii) i.e. Muja Siram and Mauja Pagru, therefore property no. (ii) and (iii) i.e. Muja Siram and Mauja Pagru cannot be treated as 74 2025:JHHC:34674 "proceeds of crime" without a distinct predicate crime related to each asset.
129. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein the meaning of "same transaction". The expression "same transaction" from its very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the "same transaction", reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar, (2001) 4 SCC 350.
130. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 560 has categorically held that the expression "same transaction", from its very nature, is incapable of an exact definition and it is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction.
131. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of X5 v. Y1, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1878 wherein it has been categorically held 75 2025:JHHC:34674 that in criminal law, the question whether certain acts and omissions form part of the same transaction often troubles the Courts. There is no definition of "same transaction" in the Code and more often than not, this determination is contingent upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
31. In criminal law, the question whether certain acts and omissions form part of the same transaction often troubles the Courts. There is no definition of "same transaction" in the Code and more often than not, this determination is contingent upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. To make it judicially determinable, we have often applied the three tests of "unity of purpose and design", "proximity of time or place" and "continuity of action". Reference may be drawn to the decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao.
132. Herein from relevant paragraphs of the prosecution complaint which have been quoted and referred hereinabove, it is evident that investigation under PMLA has revealed the petitioner's active role and his being the principal beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions relating to Cheshire Home Road, Pugru and Siram properties. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Pugru and Siram properties do not qualify as proceeds of crime, is not tenable, because as per the prosecution complaint both the said properties have been categorically identified as government properties illegally 76 2025:JHHC:34674 acquired by the petitioner in connivance with public officials.
133. Further the knowledge of the petitioner about the tainted origin of the assets stands established from the chain of transactions revealed during investigation, including the acquisition of Cheshire Home Road property, Pugru property, and Siram property. The investigation reveals a clear pattern that connects all three transactions as part of a single, continuous scheme. The evidence prima facie establishes the petitioner's active and conscious role in acquiring and concealing these tainted assets, which goes far beyond a simple purchase.
134. Prima facie the record demonstrates that the petitioner purchased the immovable properties in question, including the Cheshire Home Road property, the Pugru property, and the Siram property, which have been identified as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. The petitioner's alleged internal procedures of due diligence or satisfaction regarding the status of these properties cannot absolve him of criminal liability under Section 3 of the PMLA. The investigation has clearly indicated that these acquisitions were funded through tainted money and are integrally connected with laundering activities. Thus, the contention that the acquisitions of the 77 2025:JHHC:34674 three properties were independent and unconnected is not fit to be accepted.
135. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that petitioner is nowhere related to the alleged scheduled offence.
136. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Pavna Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023) held that who could commit an offence under the PMLA may not be named in the scheduled offence.
137. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income 78 2025:JHHC:34674 and irrespective of its volume, the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The property must qualify the definition of "Proceeds of Crime"
under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime properties.
138. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has considered the effect of the appellant not being shown as an accused in the predicate offence by taking into consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002.
139. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act 2002 which defines "proceeds of crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of PMLA defines "property" to mean any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible.
140. To constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any 79 2025:JHHC:34674 person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime.
141. It has further been observed by referring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) that the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph-15 the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if 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. 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 80 2025:JHHC:34674 in the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this aspect, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] . In para 109 of the said decision [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 166) "109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression "derived or obtained" is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of definition clause "proceeds of crime", as it obtains as of now." (emphasis in original and supplied) 81 2025:JHHC:34674
16. In paras 134 and 135, this Court held thus : (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , SCC p. 182) "134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.
135.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-laundering is not 82 2025:JHHC:34674 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." (emphasis supplied)
17. Coming back to Section 3 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 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for 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 PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must be a 83 2025:JHHC:34674 scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA."
142. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-ED has heavily relied upon the statement of the Co-accused which has been recorded under Section 50 of the Act 2002 but it is the settled position of law which has been settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that such type of evidence cannot be the sole basis in order to fix the culpability of the accused person.
143. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that there is no dispute regarding the settled proposition of law that the statements recorded which are merely confessional in nature ought to be ignored while adjudicating upon a case as confessional statement of co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and such statements can only be pressed into service when the Hon'ble Courts are inclined to accept other evidences. Thus, instead of placing reliance solely upon the statements of the petitioner and the other co-accused persons recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, the opposite party ought to have collected and relied upon other evidence in order to prosecute the petitioner.
144. Further herein it is evident from the prosecution complaint dated 01.09.2023, filed against the petitioner 84 2025:JHHC:34674 and other co-accused persons, is supported by substantial evidence gathered during the investigation and is not based upon solely on the statements of the petitioner and his accomplices.
145. Furthermore, prima facie there is ample evidence establishing the petitioner's involvement in the offence of money laundering, which is further corroborated by statements of witnesses in the instant case. Further, the petitioner's role has already been discussed herein in detail in the preceding paragraphs, therefore, the averments of the petitioner are unfounded and liable to be dismissed.
146. It requires to refer herein that the legal presumption under Section 24(a) of the Act 2002, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person in any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence which is within his personal knowledge of the accused. 85
2025:JHHC:34674
147. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate of Enforcement and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 560 has observed that as established in multiple judicial pronouncements, cases involving economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth the complete chain of events, financial transactions, and culpability of the accused, therefore the material submitted by the respondent, coupled with the broad legislative framework of the PMLA, indicates the necessity of allowing the trial to proceed and not discharging the appellant at the nascent stage of charge framing and discharging the appellant at this stage would be premature and contrary to the principles governing the prosecution in money laundering cases, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
"30. The PMLA was enacted with the primary objective of preventing money laundering and confiscating the proceeds of crime, thereby ensuring that such illicit funds do not undermine the financial system. Money laundering has far-reaching consequences, not only in terms of individual acts of corruption but also in causing significant loss to the public exchequer. The laundering of proceeds of crime results in a significant loss to the economy, disrupts lawful financial transactions, and erodes public trust in the system. The alleged offences in the present case have a direct bearing on the economy, as illicit financial transactions deprive the state of legitimate revenue, distort market integrity, and contribute to economic instability. Such acts, when committed by persons in positions of power, erode 86 2025:JHHC:34674 public confidence in governance and lead to systemic vulnerabilities within financial institutions.
31. The illegal diversion and layering of funds have a cascading effect, leading to revenue losses for the state and depriving legitimate sectors of investment and financial resources. It is settled law that in cases involving serious economic offences, judicial intervention at a preliminary stage must be exercised with caution, and proceedings should not be quashed in the absence of compelling legal grounds. The respondent has rightly argued that in cases involving allegations of such magnitude, a trial is imperative to establish the full extent of wrongdoing and to ensure accountability.
32. The PMLA was enacted to combat the menace of money laundering and to curb the use of proceeds of crime in the formal economy. Given the evolving complexity of financial crimes, courts must adopt a strict approach in matters concerning economic offences to ensure that perpetrators do not exploit procedural loopholes to evade justice.
33. The present case involves grave and serious allegations of financial misconduct, misuse of position, and involvement in transactions constituting money laundering. The appellant seeks an end to the proceedings at a preliminary stage, effectively preventing the full adjudication of facts and evidence before the competent forum. However, as established in multiple judicial pronouncements, cases involving economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth the complete chain of events, financial transactions, and culpability of the accused.
34. The material submitted by the respondent, coupled with the broad legislative framework of the PMLA, indicates the necessity of allowing the trial to proceed and not discharging the appellant at the nascent stage of charge framing. The argument that the proceedings are unwarranted is devoid of substance in light of the statutory objectives, the continuing nature of the offence, and the significant financial implications arising from the alleged acts. Discharging the appellant at this stage 87 2025:JHHC:34674 would be premature and contrary to the principles governing the prosecution in money laundering cases.
148. From perusal of case record, statements of witnesses, materials available on record and in view of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that prima-facie sufficient materials are available on the record for framing of charge against the present petitioner.
149. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631 has observed that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.
150. Thus, it is evident that the revisional power can only be exercised to correct patent error of law or procedure which would occasion unfairness, if it is not corrected. The 88 2025:JHHC:34674 revisional power cannot be compared with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.
151. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 has held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction.
152. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu,(supra) has held in paragraph 81 to 83 as under:
"81. The High Court has acted completely beyond the settled parameters, as discussed above, which govern the power to discharge the accused from the prosecution. The High Court could be said to have donned the role of a chartered accountant. This is exactly what this Court observed in Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18 SCC 135]. The High Court has completely ignored that it was not at the stage of trial or considering an appeal against a verdict in a trial. The High Court has enquired into the materials produced by the accused persons, compared with the information compiled 89 2025:JHHC:34674 by the investigating agency and pronounced a verdict saying that the explanation offered by the accused persons deserves to be accepted applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability. This entire exercise has been justified on account of the investigating officer not taking into consideration the explanation offered by the public servant and also not taking into consideration the lawful acquired assets of the wife of the public servant i.e. Respondent 2 herein.
82. By accepting the entire evidence put forward by the accused persons applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, the case put up by the prosecution cannot be termed as "groundless".
As observed by this Court in C.S.D. Swami [C.S.D. Swami v. State, AIR 1960 SC 7] that the accused might have made statements before the investigating officer as to his alleged sources of income, but the same, strictly, would not be evidence in the case.
83. Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239CrPC. At the stage of Section 239CrPC, the court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless."
153. It requires to refer herein that the ambit and scope of framing of charge, are fairly well settled which has been elaborately discussed in the preceding paragraph and as per settled proposition of law no comprehensive assessment 90 2025:JHHC:34674 of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need to be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage. The only deliberation at the stage of discharge is as to whether prima facie case was made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not.
154. Further, it is well settled that the revisional power cannot be parallelled with appellate power. The Revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as is undertaken by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court.
155. Hence, on the basis of discussion made herein above, and further taking into consideration the ratio rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate of Enforcement and Another (supra) this court is of the considered view that, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, PMLA Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No.05 of 2023 in ECIR/ RNZO/10/2023.
156. Accordingly, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 91 2025:JHHC:34674 04.02.2025, consequently, the instant criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.
157. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
158. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the trial is lying pending.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. 19th November, 2025 Alankar/-
92