Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceMilitary and National Security Law

Section 66(2) PMLA Empowers Sharing of Intelligence to Investigate National Security and Terror Financing Offences

MR. R. JONATHAN SUSHILv.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR P. S.

Section 66(2) PMLA Empowers Sharing of Intelligence to Investigate National Security and Terror Financing Offences. MR. R. JONATHAN SUSHIL vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR P. S.. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Enforcement Directorate has the legal authority under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to communicate information to jurisdictional police for the registration of an FIR involving non-PMLA offences, including UAPA

The court held

The Court answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, holding that the ED acted within its statutory mandate under Section 66(2) PMLA in sharing information with the State Police

It also directed

The Court held that the allegations were sufficiently serious to preclude quashing the FIR at the threshold

The High Court dismissed both Criminal Petitions, refusing to quash Crime No. 202/2026, while granting the petitioners liberty to seek legal remedies if a final report is filed

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the Section 528 BNSS proceedings and would not bind the ongoing investigation

01Facts

Accused No. 2 (Micah Mark) was intercepted at Bengaluru International Airport in possession of 24 international debit cards issued by Truist Bank, USA, under a generic name "Santosh Kumar"

p. 6, 16

Subsequent searches by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) revealed a network involving "The Timothy Initiative," which allegedly funneled approximately ₹92.55 crores into India between 2025 and 2026

p. 7, 16

The ED alleged that funds were systematically withdrawn via ATMs in regions affected by Left Wing Extremism (LWE/Naxalism) to fund unlawful activities

pp. 17-18

Invoking Section 66(2) of the PMLA, the ED shared this information with the Karnataka State Police, leading to the registration of FIR Crime No. 202/2026 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 13, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)

p. 5, 10, 20

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, arguing the ED lacked authority to trigger a UAPA investigation and that the charges were a "counterblast" to allegations of custodial torture

p. 8, 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Enforcement Directorate has the legal authority under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to communicate information to jurisdictional police for the registration of an FIR involving non-PMLA offences, including UAPA

p. 14 / para. 10

ii.2. Whether the investigation into offences under Sections 13, 17, and 18 of the UAPA should be quashed at the threshold stage due to lack of prima facie material

p. 29 / para. 15

03Law Applied

Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which mandates that if an authority, based on material in possession, finds a contravention of "any other law," they shall share information with the concerned agency

p. 24

Section 37 of FEMA regarding search and seizure powers

p. 26

Section 2(o) of the UAPA defining "unlawful activity," and Sections 13, 17, and 18 of the UAPA, which prescribe punishment for unlawful activities, raising funds for terrorist acts, and conspiracy

pp. 27-29

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (equivalent to Sec 482 CrPC), emphasizing judicial restraint in interdicting investigations involving National Security

pp. 31-32

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61Section 190Section 238Section 318Section 335Section 336

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 2Section 3Section 13Section 15Section 17Section 18

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 Section 66

Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 Section 37

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the petitioners' narrow interpretation of Section 66 of the PMLA, ruling that the ED is not restricted to sharing information only regarding PMLA-specific offences; the statute expressly allows sharing information if "any other law" appears contravened

¶ 11

The Court found that FEMA and PMLA must be read in tandem rather than in "watertight compartments," authorizing the ED to report the discovery of a parallel cash economy and suspected terror funding

¶ 12, 14

The Court noted that the ED's dossier detailed a suspicious pattern: over 1,000 debit cards issued under a singular false identity and used for massive cash withdrawals in LWE-affected districts like Bastar

¶ 10, 15

The Court reasoned that at this incipient stage, it is not required to find "guilt" but merely whether "prima facie material" exists to justify an inquiry

¶ 15

Given the allegations of "clandestine funding of extremism," the Court held that the investigation is a matter of National Security and must not be "nipped in the bud"

¶ 17-18

05Holding

The Court answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, holding that the ED acted within its statutory mandate under Section 66(2) PMLA in sharing information with the State Police

¶ 11-13

The Court held that the allegations were sufficiently serious to preclude quashing the FIR at the threshold

¶ 17

The High Court dismissed both Criminal Petitions, refusing to quash Crime No. 202/2026, while granting the petitioners liberty to seek legal remedies if a final report is filed

p. 32

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the Section 528 BNSS proceedings and would not bind the ongoing investigation

p. 32
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MR. R. JONATHAN SUSHILvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR P. S.

Karnataka High Court · July 01, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment