Jharkhand High Court rejects Madhu Koda’s bid to narrow alleged ₹1,340-crore PMLA charge, says it need not match the predicate-case charge sheet exactly

The petitioner, facing trial under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), sought alteration of the charge under Section 216 CrPC.

He contended that the amount alleged to be laundered substantially exceeded the amount involved in the scheduled-offence proceedings and that the larger amount lacked an established nexus with him

The Special Judge declined to alter the charge at that stage, observing that any alteration or modification could be considered at the appropriate stage of trial.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC.

He had also previously challenged a 2018 charge amendment in a criminal revision, which he withdrew on 6 December 2024 with liberty to raise available points in his defence at trial

Whether the Special Judge’s order declining immediate alteration of the charge disclosed an illegality or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC

Whether the alleged disparity between the amount quantified in the scheduled-offence proceedings and the amount alleged under the PMLA required alteration of the charge under Section 216 CrPC

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but that power must be exercised sparingly and cannot ordinarily substitute for appeal or revision

Section 216 CrPC empowers the court—not a party as of right—to alter or add a charge before judgment where the material on record warrants it; the court must also guard against prejudice to the accused or prosecution

Under Sections 2(1)(u) and 3 PMLA, “proceeds of crime” include property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, and money-laundering concerns processes or activities connected with such property

Section 24 PMLA’s presumption arises only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts, including the existence of proceeds of crime and the accused’s connection to them

The PMLA does not require an arithmetical correspondence between the amount alleged in a scheduled-offence charge-sheet and the value alleged in the PMLA complaint

The Court found that the petitioner’s contention required evaluation of the alleged properties, transactions, and their evidentiary connection to the scheduled offence—matters unsuitable for determination under Section 216 or in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction

The petitioner’s own pleadings indicated that the successive charge alterations did not vary the amount alleged against him, and he failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from them

The scheduled-offence case remained pending; the petitioner had not been discharged or acquitted, and the Court found no basis in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary for limiting the PMLA charge to an amount numerically matching the predicate-offence charge-sheet

Because Section 216 does not confer a right on a party to demand alteration, and the impugned order disclosed no manifest illegality, abuse of process, or miscarriage of justice, Section 482 intervention was unwarranted

The petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 29 April 2023 was dismissed; any evidentiary questions concerning the alleged proceeds remained for trial