PMLA Prosecution Maintainable if Predicate Offence Resists Final Closure Through Pending Protest Petitions or Remand.

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

The ED initiated the case based on four primary FIRs involving land fraud (the "Roy Bangla" case), illegal sand mining, and liquor smuggling

The ED alleged that Jogendra Tiwari was the "Beneficial Owner" of multiple firms used to layer and integrate proceeds of crime (POC) totaling ₹13.29 Crores

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

1. Whether the discharge of the accused is warranted if some predicate offences have been quashed or closed by the police, while others remain active or pending judicial consideration via protest petitions

2. Whether the material collected during investigation established a *prima facie* case and "grave suspicion" sufficient to frame charges under Section 3 of the PMLA

The court primarily applied Section 3 of the PMLA defining money laundering

and Section 2(1)(u) regarding "proceeds of crime"

It relied on the landmark precedent *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022)*, which established that PMLA proceedings are standalone but depend on the existence of a scheduled offence

It further applied the principles of discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

and Section 227 of the CrPC, as interpreted in *Sajjan Kumar v. CBI* and *M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI*, which mandate that at the stage of framing charges, the court must only look for "grave suspicion" and a *prima facie* case rather than conducting a mini-trial

The court also noted that the filing of a "Protest Petition" keeps a predicate case "legally active" even if a closure report was filed

The Court reasoned that while some liquor-related FIRs were quashed, the ED’s quantification of POC (₹5.66 Crores) relied exclusively on four "active" predicate FIRs related to land and sand

Regarding the Land FIRs where police filed final reports, the Court observed that since Protest Petitions are pending, the offences remain *sub judice* and legally active

The Court found that Jogendra Tiwari acted as the central controller of a "Single Economic Unit," using the petitioner entities to "layer" illicit cash and "integrate" it by paying for government liquor licenses, thereby projecting tainted funds as untainted property

Applying the "grave suspicion" test, the Court held that the synchronized 1145% spike in cash deposits during the license application period constituted sufficient foundational facts to trigger the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA

The Court emphasized that it cannot marshal evidence or consider the accused's defense at the discharge stage

It held that the ED had produced sufficient material to establish a *prima facie* case against all petitioners

The High Court dismissed all Criminal Revision petitions, upholding the Special Judge's order dated 21.08.2025 and directing the trial to proceed