PMLA Prosecution Survives if Any Predicate Offence is Pending Judicial Adjudication or Protest Petition.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered ECIR Case No. 08/2023 based on four primary predicate FIRs involving fraudulent land grabbing of "Roy Bangla" (Deoghar Town PS Case No. 342/2020), forged Land Possession Certificates (Jasidih PS Case No. 50/2020), illegal sand mining (Margomunda PS Case No. 27/2020), and liquor smuggling (Rikhiya PS Case No. 01/2022)

Investigation revealed that Jogendra Tiwari (Petitioner in Cr. Rev. 1128/2025) was the "Beneficial Owner" of eleven associated entities, using them to layer and integrate proceeds of crime (POC) totaling ₹13,29,92,620

The petitioners filed for discharge, arguing that several predicate FIRs had been quashed or closed by final reports, thereby extinguishing the PMLA proceedings

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

Whether the rejection of discharge was erroneous given the alleged absence of live and subsisting scheduled offences.

Whether the evidence collected during investigation establishes a prima facie case of money laundering against the petitioners under Section 3 of the PMLA.

The court applied the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) and "Offence of Money Laundering" under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002

It heavily 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 not yet culminated in a conviction

The court referenced *Pavana Dibbur v. ED* to affirm that an accused under PMLA need not be named in the predicate offence

Regarding discharge, the court followed Sections 227/239 of the CrPC (now Section 250 of the BNSS), and precedents like *Sajjan Kumar v. CBI* and *M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI*, which dictate that at the discharge stage, the court must only look for "grave suspicion" and a prima facie case, avoiding a "mini-trial" or meticulous appreciation of evidence

The Court observed that while the petitioners claimed the predicate offences were dead, four foundational FIRs remain legally active

In the land fraud cases, although police filed Final Forms, the trial court had not accepted them, and Protest Petitions—which qualify as pending proceedings—were active

The sand mining case was remanded for fresh consideration, and cognizance was already taken in the Rikhiya liquor case

The Court found that the ED’s quantification of ₹5,66,34,500 as POC was derived specifically from these active FIRs, independent of any quashed liquor cases

Under Section 24 of the PMLA, the prosecution established foundational facts of fund layering through shell companies and sudden peaks in cash deposits (1145.87% increase in 2021), shifting the burden to the accused to prove the funds were untainted—a triable issue that cannot be resolved at the discharge stage

The Court concluded that the pervasive control of Jogendra Tiwari over the entities indicated a "Single Economic Unit" designed to launder illicit wealth

It held that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to appreciate evidence or interfere with a trial court’s finding of "grave suspicion" supported by material records

The Criminal Revision petitions were dismissed, and the Special Judge’s order dated 21.08.2025 refusing discharge was upheld