PMLA prosecution remains sustainable if any predicate offence is active, regardless of other acquittals or quashed FIRs.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered ECIR No. 08/2023 against Jogendra Tiwari and 11 associated entities (Petitioners) based on four predicate FIRs involving land fraud ("Roy Bangla" case), illegal sand mining, and liquor smuggling.

Investigation revealed that Tiwari, as the "Beneficial Owner," laundered approximately ₹13.29 Crores by layering proceeds of crime (POC) through Petitioner entities to pay for wholesale liquor licenses.

Following a 1145.87% increase in cash deposits within a two-month window in 2021, the ED filed a Prosecution Complaint.

The Petitioners filed for discharge, arguing that several predicate FIRs had been quashed or closed.

The Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi, rejected the discharge applications on 21.08.2025.

Whether the discharge of the accused is warranted in the absence of a "live" scheduled offence when certain predicate FIRs are finalized or quashed.

Whether the materials collected during the investigation establish a *prima facie* case and "grave suspicion" sufficient to proceed with trial under Section 3 of the PMLA.

The Court primarily applied Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, defining the offence of money laundering as a "standalone" process involving any activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

It relied on the doctrine from *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India*, which clarifies that while PMLA proceedings cannot survive if the predicate offence is finally quashed or results in acquittal, they remain active so long as the scheduled offence is pending enquiry or trial.

The Court further applied the principle from *Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement*, holding that an accused in a PMLA case need not be an accused in the predicate offence.

For discharge, the Court followed Sections 227/239 CrPC (now Section 250 BNSS), emphasizing that at the discharge stage, the court must only "sift and weigh" evidence to find if a *prima facie* case exists, as established in *Sajjan Kumar v. CBI* and *M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI*.

The Court reasoned that while some liquor-related FIRs were quashed, four foundational predicate FIRs (Land and Sand scams) remain legally active.

Specifically, in the "Roy Bangla" land cases, the closure reports (Final Forms) filed by the police have not been accepted by the Trial Court, and protest petitions are pending, which legally constitutes a pending proceeding.

Further, the High Court had remanded the sand mining case for fresh consideration, and cognizance was taken in the Rikhiya P.S. liquor smuggling case.

The Court observed that the ED's quantification of ₹5.66 Crores in POC was derived exclusively from these active FIRs, independent of the quashed cases.

The investigation revealed a synchronized layering of funds through shell companies to project tainted money as untainted to acquire liquor licenses.

Applying the standard for discharge, the Court held that "grave suspicion" was established through the money trail and the role of Jogendra Tiwari as the beneficial controller, making these triable issues that cannot be resolved via a "mini-trial" at the discharge stage.

It answered both issues in the negative for the Petitioners, ruling that the materials on record raise a strong presumptive opinion of guilt.

The Jharkhand High Court upheld the Special Judge's order, finding no patent error of jurisdiction or procedure.

All Criminal Revision petitions were dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed.