### PMLA Proceedings Sustain Independent of Quashed FIRs if Interlinked Scheduled Offences Remain Judicially Active

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered ECIR No. 08/2023 based on four primary predicate FIRs involving land fraud (Roy-Bangla property), illegal sand mining, and liquor smuggling.

The investigation alleged that Jogendra Tiwari, the "Beneficial Owner" of 11 entities (the petitioners), generated Proceeds of Crime (POC) totaling ₹13,29,92,620 through these activities.

The ED alleged these funds were layered and integrated into the formal economy, specifically to pay for wholesale liquor licenses in 2021.

The petitioners filed applications for discharge, contending that several liquor-related FIRs had been quashed or closed, thereby extinguishing the "scheduled offence" required for PMLA prosecution.

The Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi, rejected the discharge applications on 21.08.2025.

This common judgment addresses the batch of revision petitions challenging those rejections.

1. Whether the order rejecting the discharge applications suffered from legal error given the alleged absence of a live scheduled offence.

2. Whether the evidence collected during the investigation establishes a *prima facie* case of money laundering against the petitioners to justify trial.

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

It relied on the seminal precedent *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India*, which establishes that while PMLA proceedings are standalone, they cannot continue if the accused is finally acquitted or the predicate offence is quashed.

The court further applied Section 227 of the CrPC (and its equivalent Section 250 of the BNSS) regarding discharge, noting that the Judge must only "sift and weigh" evidence to find a *prima facie* case or "grave suspicion" rather than conducting a mini-trial.

Precedents like *Pavana Dibbur v. ED* were used to clarify that a person not named in the predicate offence can still be prosecuted under PMLA if they are involved in the process of laundering.

The High Court observed that while some liquor-related FIRs were quashed, four foundational predicate FIRs (Land, Sand, and Liquor smuggling) remain active or are sub-judice via Protest Petitions.

The Court reasoned that the ED's quantification of ₹5,66,34,500 in POC was derived exclusively from these active FIRs, not the quashed ones.

The Court found that the investigation revealed a synchronized 1145% increase in cash deposits in the petitioners’ accounts during the 2021 license application window, suggesting the "layering" and "integration" of tainted funds.

Applying the standard for discharge, the Court held that the Special Judge correctly identified "grave suspicion" founded on tangible material, such as the flow of funds through shell companies like M/s Mackmorn Commodities Pvt. Ltd.

The Court emphasized that the "foundational facts" of a scheduled offence and a financial trail exist, shifting the burden under Section 24 of the PMLA to the accused at the trial stage.

The Court held that a *prima facie* case was clearly established and that discharging the petitioners at this nascent stage would be premature and contrary to the principles of economic offence prosecutions.

The Criminal Revision petitions were dismissed, and the Special Judge's order dated 21.08.2025 was upheld.