### PMLA Prosecution Survives if Any Predicate Offence is Pending Adjudication via Protest Petition or Remand

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

The investigation revealed that Tiwari was the "Beneficial Owner" of these entities, using them to layer and integrate proceeds of crime (POC) totaling ₹13,29,92,620.

The petitioners filed discharge applications, arguing that several predicate FIRs had been quashed or resulted in final reports (closure), thus extinguishing the PMLA proceedings.

The Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi, rejected these applications on 21.08.2025, leading to these revision petitions.

Whether the discharge applications were rightly rejected despite the quashing or closure of certain predicate offences.

Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case and grave suspicion against the petitioners to warrant trial.

The court primarily applied Section 3 of the PMLA, which defines money laundering as a standalone offence involving the concealment, possession, or use of "proceeds of crime."

It relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which established that PMLA proceedings can continue as long as a scheduled offence is pending enquiry or trial, even if others are quashed.

It further applied the "reverse burden of proof" under Section 24 of the PMLA and the principle from Pavana Dibbur v. ED, holding that an accused in a PMLA case need not be an accused in the predicate offence.

Regarding discharge, the court applied Section 250 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 227 CrPC), emphasizing that at this stage, the court must only look for "grave suspicion" rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, as held in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. ED.

The Court reasoned that the PMLA prosecution does not collapse simply because some predicate FIRs were quashed, as four foundational FIRs (Land, Sand, and Liquor related) remain active or are under judicial consideration via Protest Petitions.

The Court noted that even if the police filed "Final Forms" (closure reports), the pendency of a Protest Petition keeps the scheduled offence legally alive for PMLA purposes.

The ED's investigation successfully mapped a synchronized 1145.87% increase in cash deposits in the petitioners' accounts during the 2021 liquor licensing window, suggesting the "integration" of tainted funds.

The Court found that Jogendra Tiwari exerted actual control over all entities to project POC as untainted property.

Applying the standards for discharge, the Court held that the meticulous examination of evidence or weighing of potential defenses (such as the legitimacy of loans) constitutes a "mini-trial," which is impermissible at the stage of framing charges.

The Court concluded that the material placed by the ED created a strong prima facie case and "grave suspicion" against the petitioners.

Consequently, the High Court found no patent error or illegality in the Special Judge's order and dismissed all criminal revision petitions, directing the trial to proceed.