### PMLA Proceedings Can Sustain on Pending Protest Petitions Even if Scheduled Offence Final Reports Are Filed

Eleven entities and one individual, Jogendra Tiwari, filed revision petitions against the Special Judge, PMLA’s order dated 21.08.2025, which rejected their discharge applications in ECIR Case No. 08/2023

The ED’s case originated from four primary FIRs involving land fraud ("Roy Bangla" property), illegal sand mining, and liquor smuggling

Investigation revealed that Jogendra Tiwari was the "beneficial owner" of the petitioner entities, using them to layer and integrate proceeds of crime (POC) amounting to approximately ₹13.29 Crores

The petitioners sought discharge on the grounds that several predicate FIRs had been quashed or resulted in closure reports (Final Forms), arguing that PMLA proceedings cannot survive without a live scheduled offence

Whether the order rejecting the discharge applications suffered from legal error given the status of the predicate offences

Whether the evidence collected during the investigation established a *prima facie* case against the petitioners to warrant trial

The court applied the definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) and the offence of "money-laundering" under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002

It relied heavily on the three-judge bench decision in *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India*, which held that while PMLA depends on a scheduled offence, proceedings can continue if the predicate offence is still pending or sub-judice

The court also applied the "reverse burden of proof" under Section 24 of the PMLA

established principles for discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 227 CrPC), referencing *Sajjan Kumar v. CBI* and *M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI*, which state that a court needs only "grave suspicion" rather than proof beyond doubt to frame charges

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the "legal substratum" had vanished.

It observed that while some liquor-related FIRs were quashed, the ED’s quantified POC of ₹5.66 Crores was specifically derived from four active and pending predicate FIRs

Regarding the Land FIRs where police filed "Final Forms," the court noted these were not "closed" because Protest Petitions are pending judicial adjudication

Similarly, the Sand FIR remained active following a remand by the High Court

Applying *Pavana Dibbur v. ED*, the court clarified that an accused under PMLA need not be an accused in the predicate offence, provided they are involved in any process relating to the POC

The court found that the synchronized 1145% spike in cash deposits in the petitioners’ accounts during the liquor licensing period created a "grave suspicion" of layering and integration

The court concluded that a *prima facie* case exists against Jogendra Tiwari as the beneficial owner and the entities as vehicles for laundering

Holding that a "mini-trial" is impermissible at the discharge stage and that the Revisional Court should not meticulously weigh evidence like a Trial Court, the High Court dismissed all revision petitions and upheld the trial court's refusal to discharge the petitioners