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, 16Subsequent 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p. 7, 16The ED alleged that funds were systematically withdrawn via ATMs in regions affected by Left Wing Extremism (LWE/Naxalism) to fund unlawful activities
pp. 17-18Invoking 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, 20The 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, 1002Issues
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. 10ii.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. 1503Law 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. 24Section 37 of FEMA regarding search and seizure powers
p. 26Section 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. 27-29Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (equivalent to Sec 482 CrPC), emphasizing judicial restraint in interdicting investigations involving National Security
pp. 31-32Provisions 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
¶ 11The 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, 14The 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, 15The 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
¶ 15Given 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"
¶ 17-1805Holding
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
¶ 11-13The Court held that the allegations were sufficiently serious to preclude quashing the FIR at the threshold
¶ 17The 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. 32The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the Section 528 BNSS proceedings and would not bind the ongoing investigation
p. 32Original Court PDF
MR. R. JONATHAN SUSHILvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR P. S.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
