Presumption u/s 24 of PMLA Can be Rebutted Only at Stage of Trial & Not at Stage of Framing of Charge | HC

Case Details: Kumar Pranav v. State - [2023] 153 taxmann.com 291 (HC - Jharkhand)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
  • Rahul Kumar & Apoorva Singh, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Prashant Vidyarthy, C.G.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, an FIR was registered by CBI against the company ‘Classic Coal’ for offences under sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These charges were related to defrauding the Government by submitting false and bogus invoices showing the procurement of bitumen.

After an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the contracting company ‘Classic Coal’ through its directors, including ‘PK’ (i.e. the father of the petitioner, since dead) and others for causing wrongful loss to the Government of Jharkhand and wrongful gain to the company.

An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The proceeds of crime to the tune Rs. 8.96 crores had been attached by the ED, which included a plot worth Rs. 2.08 crore in the name of the petitioner.

The petitioners filed a petition for discharge under the PMLA, claiming that the said plot was purchased not from the proceeds of crime, but from the financial resources of the company.

It was noted that the presumption under section 24 of the PMLA can be rebutted only at the stage of trial and not at the stage of framing of charges.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that nexus if any, between the properties acquired in the name of the petitioner and the proceeds of crime was a question of fact to be looked into at the stage of trial and not at the stage of discharge.

The High Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Special Judge whereby and where under the petition of the petitioner for discharge under PMLA had been rejected.

As a result, the instant criminal revision petition for quashing the order by the Special Judge was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act) [2015] 64 taxmann.com 291/[2016] 133 SCL 341 (SC) (para 14) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] 140 taxmann.com 610 (SC) (para 9)
  • Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act) [2015] 64 taxmann.com 291/[2016] 133 SCL 341 (SC) (para 14).