Jharkhand High Court
Alamgir Alam vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 6 May, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:13565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.208 of 2025
-----
Alamgir Alam, aged about 75 years, son of late Sanaul Haque, resident
of Sector-2, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,
834002. … … Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India represented through the
Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road,
Hinoo, PO Hinoo, PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 834002.
… … Respondent
With
Cr. Revision No. 120 of 2026
Alamgir Alam, aged about 74 years, son of late Sanaul Haque, resident
of Sector-2, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,
(Jharkhand) … … Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India represented through
Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road,
Hinoo, PO Doranda, PS Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
… … Respondent
——
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
——-
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samir Saurabh, Advocate;
Ms. Preeti Kumari, Advocate;
Mrs. Divya, Advocate
Ms. Isha Kaushik,Advocate;
Mr.Vishal Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate;
Mr.Zohab Hussain, Advocate (Through V.C.)
Mr.Saurabh Kumar,Advocate;
Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocate
——
th
C.A.V. on:8 April, 2026 Pronounced on: 6th May, 2026
1. Since these matters are interlinked and, as such, both are heard
together and being disposed of by a common order.
2. Both of these Criminal Revision petitions have been filed under
sections 438 & 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Criminal Revision No.208 of 2025 is directed against the order
dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in
1
2026:JHHC:13565
M.C.A. No. 2964 of 2024, arising out of ECIR-02/2023 by which
discharge petition filed by the petitioner for the offence under section 3
punishable under section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002(in short PMLA, 2002) has been rejected.
4. Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2026 is directed against the order
dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi
in connection with ECIR Case No. 02 of 2023 registered for the offence
under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, whereby and whereunder, the charge has been framed against the
petitioner.
Factual Matrix:
7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the
instant petitions which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
(i) An ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020
was registered on 17.09.2020 and investigation under the
provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)
was initiated on the basis of FIR bearing No. 13 of 2019
dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB Jamshedpur for
the offence under section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption,2018 and on completion of investigation charge-
sheet No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 was filed by ACB
Jamshedpur against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan
under section 7(b) of the P.C Act, 2018 for the offence
under section 120B and 201 of IPC which are scheduled
offences under Part-A, Paragraph No.1 of PML Act, 2002.
2
2026:JHHC:13565
(ii) During investigation upon Veerendra Kumar
Ram and his close associates, several searches were
conducted on 21-02-2023 at various places across India and
it was found that part of the Proceeds of crime acquired in
the form of taking commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of
tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, Chief Engineer in Rural
Works Department, Jharkhand was getting routed by a Delhi
based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family
members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank
accounts of Mukesh Mittal’s employees/relatives. It is also
alleged that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to his
CA Mukesh Mittal who with the help of entry providers
used to make entries in the bank accounts of his employees
and relatives and then such fund was transferred by him into
the bank accounts of Rajkumari (Wife of Veerendra Ram)
and his father Shri Genda Ram.
(iii) It is also alleged that some bank accounts were
opened in Delhi on the basis of forged documents.
Therefore, information related to the same was shared with
the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. Further
on the basis of the said information an FIR No. 22/2023 was
registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi on
03.03.2023 against (1) Shri Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii)
Mukesh Mittal, and (iii) unknown others under Sections
419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484, and 120 B
3
2026:JHHC:13565
of IPC, 1860, and Section 7 and 5 of Specified Bank
Notes(Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.In light of the
additional facts emerging out of the investigation, FIR No.
22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the
investigation of present ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17-
09-2020.
(iv) A prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case Number
02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 was filed before
the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi 21.04.2023
against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari
and Genda Ram and the cognizance of the same was taken
by the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi on 29-04-2023.
(v) Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint
vide ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of
PMLA, 2002 was filed before the Learned Special Court
(PMLA), Ranchi on 20.08.2023 against Veerendra Kumar
Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal,
Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish
Yadav and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the
same is taken on 22.08.2023.
(vi) During further course of investigation searches
were conducted on 06-05-2024, 07-05-2024, 08-05-2024,
09-05-2024, 10-05-2024 and 24-05-2024 under section 17
of the PMLA, 2002 in the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
Jahangir Alam, Munna Singh, Kuldip Kumar Minz, Vikash
4
2026:JHHC:13565
Kumar, Raj Kumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey,Rajiv Kumar Singh,
Amit Kumar and Santosh Kumar at various places.
As a result of the search, huge cash was recovered and
seized from the residential premises of Jahangir Alam
situated at Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli,
Ranchi.
(vii) Further, huge cash have been recovered and seized
from the residential premises of Munna Singh situated at
Flat No. 1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi. Munna
Singh stated that he used to collect cash from the
engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal.
Searches were also conducted at the residences of Rajiv
Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey and
Amit Kumar.
(vii) Accordingly, on 07-05-2024 Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and Jahangir Alam were arrested for the commission of the
offence under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
(viii) Alamgir Alam being the minister of Department
of Rural Works (RWD) and all the departments under it, he
is at the top in the syndicate of commission collection.
Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to collect the share of 1.35 % of
minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers.
Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed
departmental engineers to hand over the petitioner’s
5
2026:JHHC:13565
commission to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh
Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated
that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission
from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50
crores approx, to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam.
(ix) Thus, the same amount of POC was acquired by
the petitioner through Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs. 53
crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx, was seized during
the search proceedings. Further, it is alleged that the
petitioner also acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3
crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of
the department and same transaction was also assisted by
Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022. It is also alleged
that the petitioner is found to be directly indulged and
actually involved in possession and concealment of at least
Rs. 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev
Kumar Lal and he has also been found to be directly
indulged and actually involved in acquisition and
concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the proceeds of
crime.
(x) Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed
departmental engineers to hand over the petitioner’s
commission to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh
Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated
that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission
6
2026:JHHC:13565
from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50
crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus,
the same amount was acquired by the petitioner through
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of
Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search
proceedings.
(xi) Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner also
acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from
Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of the
department and same transaction was also assisted by
Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
(xii) It is also alleged that the petitioner is found to be
directly indulged and actually involved in possession and
concealment of at least Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of
Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also been
found to be directly indulged and actually involved in
acquisition and concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the
Proceeds of Crime.
(xiii) A supplementary prosecution complaint vide
ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA,
2002 is filed before the Learned Special Court (PMLA),
Ranchi on 04.07.2024 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok
Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara
Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav,
Hirdya Nand Tiwari, Alamgir Alam, the present petitioner,
7
2026:JHHC:13565
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir Alam and the cognizance
of the same is taken on 12.07.2024.
(xiv) Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc.
Cri. Application No. 2190 of 2024 for grant of bail but the
same was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024 by the court
of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum
Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.
(xv) Consequent thereto present petitioner has
preferred bail application being B.A.No.9548 of 2024
before this Court but vide order dated 11.07.2025 the said
application was rejected by this Court.
(xvi) Subsequent to filing of said ECIR/ Complaint, the
learned Special Judge, PML, Act, Ranchi, vide an order
dated 12.07.2024, has been pleased to take cognizance of
offences defined under Section 3 of PML Act, 2002 and
punishable under Section 4 of the said Act against the
aforesaid accused persons including the present petitioner
and directed for issuance of summon to the petitioner.
(xvii) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a discharge
petition praying for discharge as there was no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 3
of the PMLA, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of the
Act, 2002.
(xviii) It is the case of the petitioner that the learned
Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi without appreciating the
8
2026:JHHC:13565
materials available on record, has rejected the discharge
petition preferred by the petitioner vide order dated
03.12.2024 and vide order dated 07.12.2024 has framed the
charge for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA
punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA against the
petitioner.
(xix) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders dated
03.12.2024 and 07.12.2024 the instant revision applications
have been preferred by the present petitioner.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner:
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) has
submitted that the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi has failed to
appreciate that the prosecution has not produced material whichwould
show that the petitioner has in any manner dealt with “proceeds of
crime”.
9. It is further stated that the said case instituted against Suresh
Prasad Verma, a Junior Engineer, for accepting illegal gratification of
Rs. 10,000/- for which Jamshedpur P.S. Case No.13 of 2019 was
registered and there is no allegation against the petitioner in the said
case.
10. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not an accused in the
schedule offence and has no role to play in the offence as alleged in FIR
No.13/2019 and FIR No. 22/2023 and the case against the petitioner
accused being beneficiary of a syndicate has been manufactured based
on false and fabricated statements and documents and the charges
9
2026:JHHC:13565against him are politically motivated and based on suspicion rather than
concrete evidence.
11. It is further submitted that the petitioner accused is not named
in the first supplementary prosecution complaint vide ECIR No. 02/2023
which was filed against other co-accused persons and second
supplementary prosecution complaint in which petitioner herein has been
arrayed as an accused by the ED.
12. It is further submitted that Section 197 of Cr.P.C. provides that
when any public servant is accused of any offence alleged to have been
committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence, except
with previous sanction of the competent authority.
13. It has been contended that in terms of section 5 and 8 of PMLA,
2002 the provisions relating to attachment of the property, which has
been seized under section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002. The Adjudicating Authority pass the order of attachment if it has
reason to believe that any person has committed an offence under section
3 of PMLA, 2002 or is in possession of Proceed of Crime. In the instant
case neither any provisional attachment order has been passed under
section 5 of PMLA nor any attachment proceeding is pending against the
petitioner relating to Proceed of Crime. In such situation continuation of
instant proceeding relating to money laundering is abuse of the process
against the petitioner and he is liable to be discharged only on this
ground alone.
10
2026:JHHC:13565
14. It has further been submitted that the section 8 of PMLA, 2002,
no prayer has been made by the complainant to attach the seized cash
amount, knowing fully well that the recovery of cash not comes under
the definition of Money Laundering.
15. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered
from the petitioner or his family members and he is in no way connected
to the proceeds of crime. There is a complete lack of evidence
demonstrating any link or association between the petitioner and the
proceeds of crime and no money trail has been identified that implicates
the petitioner.
16. It is further submitted that there is no predicate offence
established against the petitioner under the P.C. Act. The prosecution has
failed to present any evidence that would substantiate the charge of
money laundering u/s 3 of the PMLA and without a predicate offence,
there is no established source of the proceeds of crime and the very basis
for alleging money laundering i.e. 3 is absent. The lack of a formal
charge against the petitioner for a scheduled offence renders the
invocation of Section 3 of the PMLA legally untenable and
unsustainable and the charge of money laundering cannot be legally
maintained.
17. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses in their
statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA have provided any details regarding
how the proceeds of crime were laundered by the petitioner, either
directly or indirectly. The statements recorded by the prosecuting
agency, which allege that the petitioner received 1.35% commission u/s
11
2026:JHHC:13565
50 of PMLA, 2002, fail to satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of the
PMLA, 2002, these statements are made by individuals who themselves
are in the role of co-accused in this case. The statements are unsupported
by any substantive evidence, they are inadmissible and cannot be used
against the petitioner accused.The statements of co-accused persons
recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA are not an admissible piece of evidence
and these statements can only be used to corroborate other evidence that
the prosecution might have.There is no other evidence in the possession
of prosecuting agency to lend corroboration to the statements being
relied upon.
18. There is no documentary evidence on record direct or indirect
which establish that the petitioner had received commission of Rs. 3
Crore on one instance in September, 2002 and charges cannot be framed
without any material evidence or recovery to support the allegations
against the petitioner. There is no evidence linking the present petitioner
with the alleged proceeds of crime.
19. It is further submitted that the alleged documents seized from
the premises of Jahangir Alam pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar Lal
including several torn pages of few diaries and notes with abbreviations
cannot be read as evidence against the petitioner. The code names
written on the torn pages cannot be connected with the petitioner by any
means and those code words are based on the respondent agency’s
assumptions and manipulations.
20. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove
the foundation facts regarding the involvement of the petitioner in any
12
2026:JHHC:13565
process or activity related to the proceeds of crime, therefore, no
presumption u/s 24 of the PMLA, 2002 can be triggered against the
petitioner. The entire prosecution complaint is without any iota of
evidence or credible allegation supported by any proof to show that the
petitioner accused was deliberately assisting in any activity related to
money laundering directly or indirectly.
21. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the observation
made in the matter of Director of Enforcement vs. Bibhu Prasad
Acgharya and Others, MANU/SC/1176/2024.
22. It has further been contended that the learned court below has
also not considered the fact that after institution of ECIR on 17.9.2020
investigation was started by the opposite party and in course of that it
transpired that Mukesh Mittal was involved in transfer of fund of
Veerendra Kumar Ram into the bank accounts of Rajkumar and Genda
Ram for which an information under section 66(2) of PMLA was given
by Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, to the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi for which an FIR vide Economic Offence Wing PS, case
no. 22/2003 was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi
on 03.03.2023 against (1) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh Mittal,
and (iii) unknown others under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471,
473, 474, 476, 484, and 120 (B) of IPC, 1860, and Section 7 and 5 of
Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.The said case
although registered after ECIR case but the same has been treated as a
predicate offence of the instant case. In the said FIR also, there is no
13
2026:JHHC:13565
allegation against the petitioner and none of the transaction as alleged in
the said FIR is remotely related with the petitioner.
23. It is stated that after registration of the ECIR investigation was
conducted and it was found that Rs. 2.67 Crores seized by Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur from the premises of Alok Ranjan was
actually belongs to Veerendra Kumar Ram, Chief Engineer Rural Works
Department and, accordingly a complaint under section 45 of Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as PMLA, 2002)
was filed on 21.04.2023 before the Learned Special Judge, P.M.L. Act,
2002, Ranchi,with the allegation that Veerendra Kumar Ram and his
family members have acquired movable and immovable property
amounting to Rs. 39,28,82,578/-, in which cognizance was taken on
29.04.2023 for the offence defined u/s 3 punishable u/s 4 of PMLA,
2002 against Veerendra Kumar Ram and three others and further a
supplementary complaint was filed against Veerendra Kumar Ram and
nine others on 20.08.2023 with the allegation that Mukesh Mittal is
involved in Proceeds of Crime worth of Rs. 35,77,117.94/-.
24. It is stated that till the submission of complaint dated-
21.04.2023 and supplementary complaint dated-20.08.2023 no
involvement of the petitioner was surfaced even after recording of the
statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that no case of Money Laundering as defined under
section 3 and punishable under section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 is made out
14
2026:JHHC:13565
against the petitioner and as such he is liable to discharge from the
instant case.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent:
26. Ld. Counsel for respondent-E.D. has opposed the prayer for
discharge and submitted that there are ample evidence against the
petitioner regarding his involvement in the offence of money laundering.
27. It is submitted that a total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17
of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir
Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result
of the search huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital
devices, records and various incriminating documents were recovered
which gave details with regard to the various individuals involved in the
process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.
28. Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also
stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4% of the total tender
amount is collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers
of the respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect
the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers. He further stated
that first of all, the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers used to inform
him regarding handing over the share of Alamgir Alam and they
requested Sanjeev Kumar Lal to send some person to collect cash i.e.
commission. Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to instruct Munna
15
2026:JHHC:13565
Singh who was his close friend, and/or his brother (Santosh Kumar) to
collect cash from the said engineers. Sanjeev Kumar Lal further
instructed Jahangir Alam to stand near Abhinandan Marriage Hall, near
Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter
bearing Registration No. JH01ES8402, where Rinku alias Santosh
Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with
currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the
said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. IA, Sir Syed
Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. Thus, it is ascertained that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of commission on behalf
of Minister Alamgir Alam.
29. Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,
JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they
have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the
engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender
allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The
commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which
among the Ministers, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is as
under:
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65%-Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
16
2026:JHHC:13565
30. They also stated that the collection of commission for minister
Alamgir Alam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his
person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by
Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons.
31. It has been contended that the co-accused Veerendra Kumar
Ram during his statement made u/s 50 of PMLA stated that in one of the
instances crores of commission were handed over to the co-accused
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS of the present petitioner, in September 2022.
32. The petitioner Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i) Department of
Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii)
Department of Rural Development (RDD) Jharkhand State Rural Road
Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development Special
Division (RDSD) are the part of the Department of Rural Works (RWD).
RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs the roads and bridges in the state
of Jharkhand, for which tenders are floated by these departments, against
which 3% commission has been collected. He being the minister of these
departments, is all in all and at the top echelon in the syndicate of
commission collection. He has pressurized and compelled the Chief
Engineer under his portfolio to collect commission and give him his
share through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
33. It has further been contended that he has instructed Sanjeev
Kumar Lal to collect his 1.35% share in total commission which is 3% of
total tender value accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed
departmental engineers to hand over the commission part of Alamgir
Alam to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku
17
2026:JHHC:13565
Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs.
53 crores of commission from such engineers/contractors and handed
over Rs.50 crores approx to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus,
the same amount of POC was acquired by Alamgir Alam through
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores
approx. was seized during the search proceeding.
34. It has been contended that it is ascertained from the statement
of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam
also acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra
Kumar Ram through one engineer of the department and same
transaction was also assisted by Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
35. Thus, the petitioner Alamgir Alam is found to be directly
indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of at least
Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and
he has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in
acquisition and concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of
Crime.
36. It is further argued by the prosecution that the misdeeds of the
accused may not be covered u/s 197 Cr.P.C. as its operation has to be
limited to those duties which are discharged in course of official duty
and collection of commission or bribe can’t be considered as official
duty of the petitioner. In order to substantiate this limb of argument the
learned counsel for respondent ED has relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Shadakshari vs
State of Karnatka& others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 42.
18
2026:JHHC:13565
37. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-ED, on the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, not a fit case where the
impugned orders to be interfered with.
Analysis
38. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and has also gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial
Court in the impugned orders as also the counter affidavit.
39. In the background of the factual aspect as referred hereinabove
in the preceding paragraphs, the issues which require consideration are
that:
(i) Whether the orders dated 03.12.2024 and 07.12.2024 by which
the application for discharge filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed and charges have been framed respectively, can be said
to suffer from an error?
(ii) Whether on the basis of the evidence which has been collected
in course of investigation, prima facie case against the petitioner is
made out or not?
40. Since both the issues are interlinked as such, they are taken up
together.
41. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the
19
2026:JHHC:13565
provisions of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and
intent.
42. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a
comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering,
attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof
including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies
and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money
laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
43. It is, thus, evident that Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer
the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for
preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime,
adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering
and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime.
44. It needs to refer herein the definition of “proceeds of crime” as
provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
“2 (1) (u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or
obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such
property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the
country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country]
4[or abroad]; [Explanation.–For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that “proceeds of crime” include property not only derived or
obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may
directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any
criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]”
20
2026:JHHC:13565
45. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that “proceeds of
crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by
any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence
or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held
outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the
country or abroad.
46. In the explanation it has been referred that for removal of
doubts, it is hereby clarified that “proceeds of crime” include property
not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any
property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a
result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The
aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act
23 of 2019. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation
under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether
as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived
or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property
or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of
explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by
including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled
offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived
or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence.
47. The “property” has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which
means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or
21
2026:JHHC:13565
incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes
deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or
assets, wherever located.
48. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which
means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The
“scheduled offence” has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads
as under: “21(y) “scheduled offence” means– (i) the offences specified
under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B
of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore
rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the
Schedule.”
49. It is evident that the “scheduled offence” means the offences
specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under
Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one
crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the
Schedule.
50. The offence of money laundering has been defined under
Section 3 of the Act, 2002, which reads as under:
“3. Offence of money-laundering.–Whosoever directly or indirectly
attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is
actually involved in any process or activity connected with the
[proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition
or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be
guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.– For the
removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,– (i) a person shall be
guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have
directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or
knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the
following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime,22
2026:JHHC:13565namely:– (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as
untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or
activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and
continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the
proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or
use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted
property in any manner whatsoever.]”
51. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that “offence of
money laundering” means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to
indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually
involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime
including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting
or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-
laundering.
52. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with
proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a
person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its
concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner
whatsoever.
53. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under
Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
54. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with
interpretation of the definition of “proceeds of crime” has been dealt
with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine
SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of the
23
2026:JHHC:13565
Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue by taking into
consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
55. It is evident that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for
which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of
money laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money
laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime,
which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner
which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of
such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the
banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain
records of the transactions, to furnish information of such transactions
within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.
56. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid
judgment wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as
inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the “proceeds
of crime” as contained under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder,
it has been clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the
“proceeds of crime” include property not only derived or obtained from
the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or
indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity
relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words “any
property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a
result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence” will
come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.
24
2026:JHHC:13565
57. In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it
has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a
person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe,
which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in
possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further
supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of
the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting
thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a
standalone process.
58. Now, after having discussed the judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of various provisions of the Act, 2002,
this Court, is proceeding to discuss the principle governing discharge and
framing of charge.
59. Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(‘BNSS’ for brevity) provides for discharge in sessions cases, which
reads as follows:
“250.Discharge (1) The accused may prefer an application for
discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of
the case under section 232 (BNSS). (2) If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this
behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and
record his reasons for doing so.”
25
2026:JHHC:13565
60. Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC‘ for brevity)
contemplates discharge by the Court of Session. The trial Judge is
required to discharge the accused if the Judge considers that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Section 250(2)
BNSS corresponds to section 227 CrPC. Section 250(1) BNSS stipulates
a time limit of 60 days from the date of committal of the case within
which an application for discharge should be filed by the accused.
61. Section 239 CrPC provides for discharge of accused in warrant
cases instituted upon a police report. The power under section 239
Cr.P.C. is exercisable when Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless. Section 262(2) BNSS is similar to section 239
CrPC but section 262 BNSS provides an opportunity to the learned
Magistrate to examine the accused either physically or through audio –
video electronic means. Section 262(1) BNSS stipulates a time limit of
60 days from the date of supply of documents under section 230 BNSS
within which an application should for discharge should be filed by the
accused.
62. Section 245 Cr.P.C. deals with warrant cases instituted
otherwise than on a police report. Section 245 CrPC corresponds to
section 268 of BNSS. The power under section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. is
exercisable when the Magistrate considers that no case against the
accused has been made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his
conviction. The Magistrate has the power of discharging the accused at
any previous stage of the case under section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. Sections 227
and 239 Cr.P.C. provide for discharge before the recording of evidence
26
2026:JHHC:13565
on the basis of the police report, the documents sent along with it and
examination of the accused after giving an opportunity to the parties to
be heard. But the stage of discharge under section 245 Cr.P.C., on the
other hand, is reached only after the evidence referred in section 244 is
taken. Despite the difference in the language of the provisions of
sections 227, 239 and 245 Cr.P.C. and whichever provision may be
applicable, the Court is required to see, at the time of framing of charge,
that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. The
main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making
submissions as envisaged under sections 227 or 239 of Cr.P.C. is to
assist the Court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct
the trial.
63. The issue of discharge was the subject matter before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu, by Inspector
of Police in Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014)
11 SCC 709, wherein, at paragraphs no.29, 32.4, 33 and 34, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed as under:–
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and
the submissions made by Mr. Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is
that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the
court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post
office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the
allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge.
It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for
discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the
materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate
the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the
facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this27
2026:JHHC:13565stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the
court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the
materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs
to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the
offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting
the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks
that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the
materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge;
though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini
trial at this stage.
32.4. While passing the impugned orders [N. Suresh Rajan v.
Inspector of Police, Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 528 22 of 2009,
order dated 10-12-2010 (Mad)], [State v. K. Ponmudi, (2007) 1 Mad
LJ (Cri) 100], the court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of
finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused but whether that would warrant a conviction. We
are of the opinion that this was not the stage where the court should
have appraised the evidence and discharged the accused as if it was
passing an order of acquittal. Further, defect in investigation itself
cannot be a ground for discharge. In our opinion, the order impugned
[N. Suresh Rajan v. Inspector of Police, Criminal Revision Case (MD)
No. 528 of 2009, order dated 10-12-2010 (Mad)] suffers from grave
error and calls for rectification.
33. Any observation made by us in this judgment is for the purpose of
disposal of these appeals and shall have no bearing on the trial. The
surviving respondents are directed to appear before the respective
courts on 3-2-2014. The Court shall proceed with the trial from the
stage of charge in accordance with law and make endeavour to
dispose of the same expeditiously.
34. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the order of
discharge with the aforesaid observations.
64. It is further settled position of law that defence on merit is not
to be considered at the time of stage of framing of charge and that cannot
be a ground of discharge. A reference may be made to the judgment as
28
2026:JHHC:13565rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok
Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191. For ready reference, paragraph no.
11 of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow: —
“11. While considering the legality of the impugned judgment [Ashok
Kumar Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3468]
and order passed by the High Court, the law on the subject and few
decisions of this Court are required to be referred to.
11.1. In P. Vijayan [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], this Court had an occasion to consider
Section 227 CrPC What is required to be considered at the time of
framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application
has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed
and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift
the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other
words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature
of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against
him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that
there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under
Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further
observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case
in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by
the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros
and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence
and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the
trial starts.
11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in M.R. Hiremath [State of
Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri)
109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380], one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
speaking for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as under :
(SCC p. 526) “25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017 SCC
OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the
trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the
provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the29
2026:JHHC:13565exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions
of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on
the assumption that the material which has been brought on the
record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to
determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its
face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to
constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of
T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529
: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721], adverting to the earlier decisions on the
subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)’29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone
into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold
that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,
what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a
ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it
differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed
the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative
value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to
come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence.
The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.”
65. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that power to discharge an
accused was designed to prevent harassment to an innocent person
by the arduous trial or the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention
is to be achieved is reasonably clear in the section itself. The power
has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge who brings to bear his
knowledge and experience in criminal trials. Besides, he has the
assistance of counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor. He is
required to hear both sides before framing any charge against the
accused or for discharging him. If the Sessions Judge after hearing
the parties frames a charge and also makes an order in support
30
2026:JHHC:13565thereof, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Self-
restraint on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there
is a glaring injustice which stares the court in the face. The opinion
on any matter may differ depending upon the person who views it.
There may be as many opinions on a particular matter as there are
courts but it is no ground for the High Court to interdict the trial. It
would be better for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed.
Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi
Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715.
66. Further, the difference between the approach with which the Court
should examine the matter in the discharge has been explained by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
(2012) 9 SCC 460, in the following words: —
“17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial
court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is
discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these
provisions, the court is required to consider the “record of the case”
and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties,
may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and
in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the court would be right in
presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and
frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption
of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence
of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a
sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker
than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the
language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is the
expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while
31
2026:JHHC:13565
Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of
charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly
guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.
30. We have already noticed that the legislature in its wisdom has
used the expression “there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence”.
67. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients
of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the
Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its
jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 referred to
the meaning of the word “presume” while relying upon Black’s Law
Dictionary. It was defined to mean “to believe or accept upon probable
evidence”; “to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is
forthcoming”. In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out
when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined
by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the
accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the accused is
provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon
completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming
its final opinion and delivering its judgment. Merely because there was a
civil transaction between the parties would not by itself alter the status of
the allegations constituting the criminal offence.”
68. Thus, it is evident that the law regarding the approach to be
adopted by the Court while considering an application for discharge of
the accused person the Court has to form a definite opinion, upon
32
2026:JHHC:13565
consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
69. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further dealt with the proper basis
for framing of charge in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT
of Delhi) wherein, at paragraphs 11, 12 and 14, it has been held as under:
“11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a
view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face
value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into
the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence
has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has
been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on
material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged
would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of
the commission of that offence.
12. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977
SCC (Cri) 404], a three-Judge Bench of this Court had observed that
at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to
the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the
commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects
a person’s liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of
material warranting such order was emphasised.
14. In a later decision in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6
SCC 338 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110] this Court, referring to several
previous decisions held that : (SCC p. 342, para 7)“7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing
charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not33
2026:JHHC:13565required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Palwinder Singh v. Balvinder
Singh, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 850 has been pleased to hold that charges
can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshaling and
appreciation of the evidence is not in the domain of the court at that
point of time. 52. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, reported in (2010) 9 SCC
368, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections
227 and 228 CrPC. The principles which emerged therefrom have
been taken note of in para 21 as under:
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections
227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The
Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained,
the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case,
the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the
court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot
be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an
opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame
the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge34
2026:JHHC:13565the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the
accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out
if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For
this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at
that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel
truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities
of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be
empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.
70. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the
case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768,
the above principles have been reiterated in para 17, 18, 28 to 31 and the
Hon’ble supreme court has explained as to how the matters of grave
suspicion are to be dealt with. The aforesaid paragraphs are being quoted
as under:
“17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to
a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P.
Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion
only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be
empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at
the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence35
2026:JHHC:13565would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to
prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence,
if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there
will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving
rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any
basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however,
would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and
cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on
record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong
suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and
refusing to discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage
when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see
State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, “the record of
the case”, used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the
documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The
Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document
at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the
charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material
produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).
28. It is here that again it becomes necessary that we remind
ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC.
The principle established is to take the materials produced by the
prosecution, both in the form of oral statements and also documentary
material, and act upon it without it been subjected to questioning
through cross-examination and everything assumed in favour of the
36
2026:JHHC:13565
prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no offence, as alleged, is
made out against the accused, it, undoubtedly, would ensure to the
benefit of the accused warranting the trial court to discharge the
accused.
29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of
defence and persuade the court to discharge him.
30. However, what is the meaning of the expression “materials on the
basis of which grave suspicion is aroused in the mind of the court’s”,
which is not explained away? Can the accused explain away the
material only with reference to the materials produced by the
prosecution? Can the accused rely upon material which he chooses to
produce at the stage?
31. In view of the decisions of this Court that the accused can only
rely on the materials which are produced by the prosecution, it must
be understood that the grave suspicion, if it is established on the
materials, should be explained away only in terms of the materials
made available by the prosecution. No doubt, the accused may appeal
to the broad probabilities to the case to persuade the court to
discharge him.”
71. It has been further held in the case of Asim Shariff v. National
Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148, that mini trial is not expected
by the trial court for the purpose of marshalling the evidence on record at
the time of framing of charge, wherein, it has been held at paragraph
no.18 of the said judgment as under:–
“18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by
this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of
framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is
akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out; where the material placed before the
court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not
been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the37
2026:JHHC:13565charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving
rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against
the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is
thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under
Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its
judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been
made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not
supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record.”
72. In the case of Asim Shariff v. NIA, (supra), it has been held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court that the words ‘not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused’ clearly show that the Judge is not a mere
post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine
whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros
and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts. At the stage
of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find
out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature
of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before
the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances
against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
73. Thus, from aforesaid legal propositions it can be safely inferred
that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused
and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
38
2026:JHHC:13565
the accused and record his reasons for doing so and if, after such
consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence,
the trial Court shall frame the charge. However, the defence of the
accused cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. The accused has
no right to produce any document at that stage. The application for
discharge has to be considered on the premise that the materials brought
on record by the prosecution are true.
74. Thus, at the time of considering an application for discharge,
the Court is required to consider the limited extent to find out whether
there is prima facie evidence against the accused to believe that he has
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; if prima facie
evidence is available against the accused, then there cannot be an order
of discharge.
75. Therefore, the stage of discharge is a stage prior to framing of
the charge and once the Court rejects the discharge application, it would
proceed to framing of charge. At the stage of discharge, the Judge has
merely to sift and weigh the evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in other
words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of
the evidence recorded by the prosecution or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame the charge against him
and after that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient
39
2026:JHHC:13565
ground to proceed, he will frame a charge and, if not, he will discharge
the accused.
76. While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and
cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
77. It is considered view that at this stage of the instant case, the
Court was only required to consider whether a prima facie case has been
made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or
not because at the stage of framing of the charge and / or considering the
discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible.
78. It requires to refer herein that the purpose of framing a charge
is to provide the accused with detailed information about the allegations
against him. Framing of proper charge is one of the basic requirements
of a fair trial. Charge is of great significance in a criminal trial as it helps
not only the accused in knowing the accusation against him but also
helps him in the preparation of his defence.
79. In a criminal trial the charge is the foundation of the accusation
and every care must be taken to see that it is not only properly framed.
At the initial stage of framing a charge, the truth, veracity and effect of
the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be
considered meticulously.
80. It is settled position of law that the accused is entitled in law to
know with precision what is the law on which they are put to trial.
40
2026:JHHC:13565
Charges are framed against the accused only when the Court finds that
the accused is not entitled to discharge under the relevant provision of
CrPC/BNSS.
81. In Sessions case the Court shall frame a charge in writing
against the accused when the Court is of the opinion that there is ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an offence as can be seen
from Section 252 of the BNSS. In warrant cases, a charge shall be
framed when a prima facie case has been made out against the accused
as is evident from sections 263 and 269 of BNSS.
82. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharastra vs.
Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 has been pleased to hold that if the
Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence,
it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required
to be that the accused had committed the offence. It was further held that
at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot look into the probative
value of the materials on record.
83. Further, while considering the question of framing a charge, the
Court has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the materials for the
limited purpose for finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out. In exercising the power, the Court cannot
act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.
84. The test to determine a prima facie case against the accused
would naturally depend on the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down the rule of universal application and if the material placed before
the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not
41
2026:JHHC:13565
been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the
charge and proceeding with the trial.
85. In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC
722, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whenever the trial Court
decides to frame charges, it is not necessary to record reasons or to do
discuss evidence in detail.
86. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy,
(2004) 6 SCC 522, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of
framing of charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It was
held that it is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or
circumstantial evidence and a charge can be framed if there are materials
showing possibility about commission of the offence by the accused as
against certainty.
87. It needs to refer herein that Sections 215 and 464 CrPC ensure
that technicalities do not defeat justice. Both the sections lay that
irregularity or error in framing a charge is not fatal unless the accused is
able to show that prejudice is caused to him as result of such irregularity
or omission. The object of section 238 BNSS is to prevent failure of
justice on account of irregularity in framing of charge.
88. In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Court must
act with a broader vision and look to the substance and not to the
technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused
had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the
main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him
42
2026:JHHC:13565
fairly and clearly and whether he had a full and fair chance to defend
himself.
89. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nathi Singh, 2009 INSC
669, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the language of
Section 464 Cr.P.C. held that the burden is on the accused to show that a
failure of justice has been occasioned on account of error, omission or
irregularity of the charge.
90. Thus, framing of charge is not a mere empty formality. Every
endeavour must be made in a criminal trial to ensure that appropriate
charge is framed against the accused. Even though mere omission, error
or irregularity in framing charges does not ipso facto vitiate trial, the
accused should be made fully aware of the specific accusations against
him in order to defend himself properly. Apart from safeguarding the
interests of the accused, framing of proper charge also ensures that the
interests of the victims and the society at large are safeguarded and no
guilty person goes unpunished only on account of error in framing the
charge.
91. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
DipakbhaiJagdhishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 16 SCC
547 has been pleased to hold that:
“21. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the
principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the Court is
expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The Court must
indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be
the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution.
The sifting of material before the Court is not to be meticulous in the
43
2026:JHHC:13565sense that Court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments
after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full fledged trial
and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case
for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the Court
must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made our
for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a
strong suspicion must be founded on some material.”
92. Thus, from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is evident
that at the stage of framing charges, trial court is not to examine and
assess in detail the material placed on record by the prosecution nor is it
for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the
offence alleged against the accused persons. Marshalling of facts and
appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of charge is not in the
domain of the court. Charge can be framed even on the basis of strong
suspicion founded upon materials before the court which leads the court
to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused.
93. It needs to refer herein that ingredients of offences should be
seen in the material produced before the court for framing of charges and
duty of court at the stage of framing of charges is to see whether the
ingredients of offences are available in the material produced before the
court. Contradictions in the statements of witnesses or sufficiency or
truthfulness of the material placed before the court cannot be examined
at the stage of framing of the charge. For this limited purpose, the court
may sift the evidence. Court has to consider material only with a view to
find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed
44
2026:JHHC:13565
an offense and not for the purpose of arriving at a definite conclusion.
“Presume‟ means if on the basis of materials on record, court can come
to the conclusion that commission of the offense is a probable
consequence, then a case for framing of charge exists.
94. Thus, it is well settled that at the time of framing of charge,
meticulous examination of evidence is not required, however the
evidence can be sifted or weighed at least for the purpose of recording a
satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out for framing charge to
proceed in the case. Further the trial Court is not required to discuss the
evidence for the purpose of conducting a trial but the discussion of the
materials on record is required to reflect the application of judicial mind
for finding that a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner.
95. It is settled connotation of law that at the stage of framing of
charge, the probable defence of the accused is not to be considered and
the materials, which are relevant for consideration, are the allegations
made in the First Information Report/complaint, the statement of the
witnesses recorded in course of investigation, the documents on which
the prosecution relies and the report of investigation submitted by the
prosecuting agency. The probative value of the defence is to be tested at
the stage of trial and not at the stage of framing of charge and at the stage
of framing of charge minute scrutiny of the evidence is not to be made
and even on a very strong suspicion, charges can be framed.
96. Further, it is settled position of law that at the stage of framing
the charge, the trial Court is not required to meticulously examine and
marshal the material available on record as to whether there is sufficient
45
2026:JHHC:13565
material against the accused which would ultimately result in conviction.
The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient
material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence.
Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for
framing the charge, the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be
determined at the time of conclusion of the trial after evidence is
adduced and not at the stage of framing the charge and, therefore, at the
stage of framing the charge, the Court is not required to undertake an
elaborate inquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material.
97. Recently, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC
657 has elaborately discussed the issue of framing of charge and has held
at paragraph-27 which reads as under:
“27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is
enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of
charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on
the charge-sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its
mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is
not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to
be evaluated by the court at the time of framing charge should be the
material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The
sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the
exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused.
All that is required at this stage is that the court must be satisfied that
the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that
the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would
suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the
court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of
Section 173 CrPC, the court may also rely upon any other evidence or
material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the
charge laid before it by the prosecution.”
46
2026:JHHC:13565
98. Thus, from aforesaid legal propositions it can be safely inferred
that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused
and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for doing so and if, after such
consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence,
the trial Court shall frame the charge.
99. Therefore, the stage of discharge is a stage prior to framing of
the charge and once the Court rejects the discharge application, it would
proceed for framing of charge. At the stage of discharge, the Judge has
merely to sift and weigh the evidence in order to find out whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in other
words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of
the evidence recorded by the prosecution or the documents produced
before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame the charge against him
and after that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed, he will frame a charge and, if not, he will discharge
the accused.
100. While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and
47
2026:JHHC:13565
cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
101. It is the considered view that at this stage of the instant case, the
Court was only required to consider whether a prima facie case has been
made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or
not because at the stage of framing of the charge and / or considering the
discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible.
102. In the backdrop of aforesaid case laws and judicial deduction,
this Court is now proceeding to examine the fact so as to come to the
conclusion, “as to whether the evidence which has been collected in
course of investigation and has been brought on record, as would be
available in the impugned order, prima facie case against the petitioner is
made out or not?”
103. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been prosecuted on the basis of assumptions and surmises,
and the officials of the Investigating Agency has totally overlooked the
principle that there must be a ‘reason to believe’ rather than mere
assumptions that the offences alleged against the petitioner have actually
been committed by him and further the learned Special Judge, PML Act,
Ranchi has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not produced
material which would show that the petitioner has, in any manner, dealt
with “proceeds of crime”.
104. Per contra, the learned counsel for ED has contended by
referring to the various paragraphs of the ECIR that orders impugned in
these Cr. Revisions are refusal of the prayer of discharge and
48
2026:JHHC:13565
subsequently framing of charge and both the orders cannot be said to
suffer from an error since ample materials are available based upon
which it cannot be said that no prima facie case is available against the
petitioner leading to discharge of the petitioner rather all these aspects
are to be adjudicated in course of the trial.
105. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for
the parties, this Court has gone through the various paragraphs of the
ECIR which has been annexed with the instant petition being Cr.
Revision, for ready reference, the various paragraphs of the said ECIR
are being quoted as under:
“7. INVESTIGATION LEADING TO FURTHER SEARCHES
UNDER PMLA:
7.1 During the course of the investigation, Veerendra Kumar Ram was
arrested u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 23.02.2023 for the offence defined
under Section 3 of PMLA. During his custodialinterrogation,
Veerendra Kumar Ram disclosed that he was taking commission
against the allotment of tenders from the contractors. He further
disclosed in his statement that the commission amount taken from the
contractors is 3.2% of the total tender value and that his share was
0.3% of the total tender value which at some postings was higher than
0.3%. However, given the total Proceeds of Crime acquired by him, it
is believed that the percentage (%) of commission varied from 0.3% to
1% of the tender value which is being stated by him under Section 50
of PMLA, 2002.
7.2 Veerendra Kumar Ram in his statement further stated that the
whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken
care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development
Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that the
share of Minister Alamgir Alam was 1.5% of the allocated tender
amount. Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores were given to
Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through
his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
49
2026:JHHC:13565
7.3 Further, it was ascertained that the amount of commission on
behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal
(his PS). Further, it was ascertained that a person named Jahangir
Alam collects such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar
Lal who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. During investigation, it
was found that Sanjeev Kumar Lal resides at Booty Road, Ranchi
which is a government accommodation. During analysis of the seized
mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal was found as ‘Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister’ and two
mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the said
contact’s name. Further, SDR, CAF and CDR of the aforesaid mobile
nos, were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851
is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another
mobile no. 8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir
Alam, S/o- Ekramul Haque. Thus, it became evident that Jahangir
Alam is a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and theJahangir acts
as a close trusted aid of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Further, analysis of the
CDR and tower location of both mobile nos. was also made and it was
found that they live in very close proximity to the government
accommodation and it was found during search that they were residing
in the same government residence. Further, it was gathered that there
is a flat in the name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal for secreting the proceeds of crime. It was also gathered
that the wife of Sanjeev Lal @ Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in
businesses related to construction and is a director/partner/shareholder
in an entity with one builder Munna Singh. It was learnt that the
proceeds of crime in the form of cash acquired by the officials/officers
of the Rural Development Department are deposited to a builder on
the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Therefore, on the basis of
reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002 was conducted at
seven premises on 06.05.2024.
7.4.As a result of the search, huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores
was recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of
Jahangir Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli,
Ranchi. ….. Further, huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore
have been recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of
Munna Singh i.e. Flat No. 1A Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
50
2026:JHHC:13565
7.5 On the basis of statement recorded of Munna Singh wherein he
stated that he used to collect such cash from the engineers/contractors
on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal, searches were also conducted at the
residences of these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar,
Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey & Amit Kumar on 07.05.2024.
7.6 Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the Residential
premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon Vatika,
KalyanpurHatiya, Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge cash amount to
the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore have been recovered and seized.
7.7 Apart from the above, as a result of the search other cash amounts
that were recovered and seized on different dates from the other
premises. …….. In this way, Cash totalling to Rs. 37.55 Crores
Approx. has been recovered and seized from the various premises
searched u/s 17 of the PMLA,2002 on 06th, 07th and 08th of May
2024.
7.8 Apart from the above cash amounts several digital devices,
incriminating documents and records were found and seized from the
aforesaid premises during the course of searches on 06.05.2024,
07.05.2024, 08.05.2024, 10.05.2024 & 24.05.2024 under section 17 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002………”
106. This Court has also gone through the averments made in the
prosecution complaint regarding modus operandi of generation of
“proceeds of crime‟, wherein it has been stated that total of 18 searches
were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on
different dates. As a result of search, huge amount of cash to the tune of
Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating
documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various
individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of
proceeds of crime. Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of
RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002
51
2026:JHHC:13565
wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the
engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender
allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The
commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which
among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is
distributed as -(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal; (b) 1.65% to Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials. They also stated that the collection of commission
for minister, Alamgir Alam, has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal
through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has been
collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected
persons. For ready reference, the relevant portion of paragraph 8 is
quoted as under:
“8. GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME
8.1 A total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi,
at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers
and other persons on different dates. As a result of the search huge
amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records
and various incriminating documents were recovered which gave
details with regard to the various individuals involved in the process
of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime. 8.2 Sanjeev
Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also stated that the
commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is
collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the
respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect the
share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers. Hefurther stated
that first of all, the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers used to
inform him regarding handing over the share of Alamgir Alam and52
2026:JHHC:13565they requested Sanjeev Kumar Lal to send some person to collect cash
i.e. commission.
Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to instruct Munna Singh who was
his close friend, and/or his brother (Santosh Kumar) to collect cash
from the said engineers. Sanjeev Kumar Lal further instructed
Jahangir Alam to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani
Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter
bearing Registration No. JH01ES8402, where Rinku alias Santosh
Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with
currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park
the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed
Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. Thus, it is ascertained that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of commission on
behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.
8.3 Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,
JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein
they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the
engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender
allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The
commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which
among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is
distributed as under: (a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his
PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials They also stated that the collection of commission
for minister Alamgir Alam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal
through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has
been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his
selected persons.
8.4 Further, From the statements of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and aforesaid
Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD the modus
operandi of allocation of Tenders and collection of commission
against the tenders has surfaced which is detailed as under:
(i) The modus operandi regarding collection of commission against
allotment tenders starts with the floating of tenders by RWD, RDSD
and JSRRDA for the construction of roads, bridges and other
government buildings in Jharkhand.
53
2026:JHHC:13565
Firstly, the Government takes decision to construct road/bridge, the
Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by Executive Engineer.
Thereafter, the technical sanction is approved by the competent
Authority i.e. up to 1.00 Crore by Superintendent Engineer and more
than 01.00 Crore by Chief Engineer. After that sanctioned estimate is
sent to the Department/Secretary and processed by the Department for
Administrative Approval (AA) duly approved by the Hon’ble Minister
of the department. Once the Administrative Approval (AA) sanction
letter is issued by the Secretary, it is sent to Chief Engineer for Tender
Process. Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several
documents including letters on official letterheads were found from
the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the
instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS
to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a
safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings
related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself. …….. …….
8.15 Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several
documents including letters on official letterheads were found from
the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the
instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS
to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a
safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings
related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself……
8.16.That, several documents and records pertaining to Sanjeev
Kumar Lal were seized from the said premise of Jahangir Alam
including several torn pages of a few diaries and notes. Whenthese
torn pages of diaries were confronted with Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he in
his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 has inter alia stated
that these torn pages and notes contain the calculations (Hisab Kitab)
of cash/commission collected against the allocation of tenders of
RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD………”
107. In order to prove the allegation, statements of several persons
were recorded under the provisions of PMLA, the gist of the statements
is quoted as under:
54
2026:JHHC:13565
“10. BRIEF DETAILS OF PERSONS EXAMINED UNDER
SECTION 17 AND 50 OF PMLA, 2002.
During the course of the search and investigation, statements of
several persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA, the gist
of the statements relevant to this investigation is as under:
10.1. Veerendra Kumar Ram: Veerendra Kumar Ram is a chief
engineer in Rural Department Special Zone and also in additional
charge of Rural Works Department. In his statement recorded u/s 50
of PMLA during custodial interrogation and in judicial custody on
different dates wherein he inter alia accepted that commission was
taken in lieu of allotment of tenders and that the total commission was
3.2% of tender value and that his share of commission was 0.3% of
the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to 1%. The share of
Minister Alamgir Alam is around 1.5% of the allocated tender
amount. He further stated that the whole process of collection and
distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant
engineers posted at Rural Development Special Zone and Rural
Works Department. He further stated that Rs. 3 crores were given to
Alamgir Alam by engineers of Rural Works Department through his
PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar
Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Lal was found as ‘Sanjeev Lal PA of
RDD Minister’ and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592)
are saved in the-said-contact’s name.
10.2. Alamgir Alam: He is the minister of RWD and other
departments. He was arrested on 15.05.2024 and during his ED
custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete
non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 56 crores
which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by him and other seized
records and documents. He has not disclosed the true facts even in his
statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 during his ED Custody and
Judicial Custody. He failed to discharge the burden of proof which is
bestowed upon him u/s 24 of PMLA.
10.3. Sanjeev Kumar Lal: He is PS to minister Alamgir Alam. He was
arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s
50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non cooperation, by not
55
2026:JHHC:13565
divulging the true facts about 53 crores initially, which are the
Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and himself and other
seized records and documents.
When he was shown the evidences, he disclosed that he was collecting
the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (1.35%) from the total
commission which is 3% of total tender amount that was collected
against the tenders of RWD, JSRRDA, RDSD, RDSD and RDSZ. He
has instructed the Chief-Engineers and other engineers to collect the
commission and give him the share of Minister Alamgir Alam. He
instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect
commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand
over the same to Jahangir Alam. He further instructed Jahangir Alam
to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna
Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam’s) premises safely. He
further accepted that the cash amount recovered and seized from the
premises of Munna Singh and Rajeev Kumar Singh during the search
is also the commission amount of Alamgir Alam which was yet to be
handed over to Jahangir Alam. He maintained the calculations (Hisab
Kitab) of the collected commission of Alamgir Alam in torn pages of
diaries. He has also taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the
commission and invested the same in immovable and movable
properties in his name and in the name of his family members.
Further, Sanjeev Kumar Lal stated u/s 50 of PMLA that Munna Singh
and his brother were not aware that the money they were collected,
was the commission amount against the tenders. They did the same on
his instructions.
10.4. Jahangir Alam: He is a close aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He
was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation
u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non cooperation, by not
divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are the
Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and other seized records and documents.
He further stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises
belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge
cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar
Lal. He further stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar
Lal instructed him to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near
56
2026:JHHC:13565
Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter
bearing, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh)
handed over bags filled with currency/note bundles, and after
receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath bed and
almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi
safely. He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev
Kumar Lal and invested the same in immovable and movable
properties in his name with the help of his friends. With respect to
jewellery seized from his premises, he in his statement recorded in
judicial custody, has accepted that the seized jewellery belongs to him
and the said jewellery items was purchased by him in cash, however,
he has no invoice in support of such purchase.
10.5. Reeta Lal: Statements of Reeta Lal W/o Sanjeev Kumar Lal were
recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein she inter alia stated that she is a
housewife and her source of income is agriculture. She has purchased
immovable properties in Khunti, Bariyatu, Kanke Road and Pundag.
She further stated that she is a partner in Tejaswini Buildcon with
Munna Singh. She transferred Rs 10 Lakhs on 22.04.2022 to the bank
account of Tejaswini Buildconas an investment. She further stated that
she has invested Rs. 21-22-Lakhs in the said firm. She further stated
that she has received Rs. 9,00,000/- from TEJASWINI BUILDCON as
a partner against her aforesaid investment made in Tejaswini
Buildcon which has been further used for purchase of aforesaid
property. Further, regarding the source of funds for the purchase of
the said property, she stated that it is either a loan taken from various
persons or her agriculture income, but she failed to produce any
documents regarding her aforesaid loans and agriculture income.
10.6. Munna Singh: Statements of Munna Singh were recorded u/s 50
of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that the huge cash amount
seized from his premises i.e. Rs. 2.93 Crore is the commission amount
which was yet to be handed over to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
He further stated that Rs. 50 Crore were collected from assistant
engineers, and he sent it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal during the period of 8
to 9 months. When asked about regarding Rs. 50 Crore already sent to
Sanjeev Kumar Lal but only Rs. 32.20 Crore have been recovered and
seized from the premised of Jahangir Alam he stated that only Sanjeev
Kumar Lal can explain the same. Further, a diary was recovered and
seized from the premises of Munna Singh which contains the details of
57
2026:JHHC:13565
commission amount of around Rs. 50 Crore collected from the Chief
and other engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD. Further, Munna
Singh has stated in his statement recorded on u/s 50 of PMLA, that he
has not received any share from the commission he used to collect. He
did the collection and handing over of the cash only following the
instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Munna Singh further stated that he
showed his inability and objected against the collection of cash and he
tried to know the source of funds from Sanjeev Kumar Lal, however,
Sanjeev Kumar Lal never revealed him the actual source of the cash
collected. Sanjeev Kumar Lal always told him that there would be no
issue in aforesaid task.
10.7. Santosh Kumar alias Rinku: Statements of Santosh Kumar alias
Rinku, brother of Munna Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA
wherein he inter alia stated that he following theinstructions of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal has collected the commission/cash from the Chief
and other engineers, and handed over the same to the person of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that he has received cash-
several times from various persons.
10.8. Rajkumar Toppo: Statement of Rajkumar Toppo, Executive
Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from Contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said
3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and
his Chief-Engineer Singrai Tuti he has collected around Rs. 5 Crore
commission from the contractors and further handed over to Santosh
Kumar, brother of Munna Singh for giving the same to Sanjeev Kumar
Lal. He further stated when he was confronted with the documents
seized from his premises on 07.05.2024, that ‘U’ stands for Umesh
Kumar, “DS” code stands for Deposited Sum, “H” code stands for58
2026:JHHC:13565Ministry (Hon’ble Minister Alamgir Alam) and Ce stands for Chief
Engineer.
10.9. Ajay Tirkey: Statement of Ajay Tirkey, Executive Engineer,
JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said
3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and
his Chief Engineer Promod Kumar, he has collected around Rs. 6.36
Crore against the total tender amount of Rs. 212 Crores. Out of which
2.86 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to
Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.10. Ajay Kumar: Statement of Ajay Kumar, Executive Engineer,
JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3%
commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% – Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further
stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief
Engineer Pramod Kumar he has collected around Rs. 4.77 Crore
against total tender amount of Rs. 150 Crores. Out of which 2.295
Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to Sanjeev
Kumar Lal.
10.11.Ashok Kumar Gupta: Statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta,
Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter
59
2026:JHHC:13565
alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was
collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms
in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated
that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The
said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further
stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief-
Engineers Singrai Tuti and Pramod Kumar he has collected around
Rs. 10.50 Crore commission from the contractors. He further stated
that he along with Ajay Kumar hadhanded over Rs. 4.72 Crores to
Sanjeev Kumar Lal as share of Minister Alamgir Alam.
10.12. Santosh Kumar: Statement of Santosh Kumar, Executive
Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said
3% commission amount is distributed as under: (a) 1.35% Minister,
Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top
bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the
instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief-Engineer Rajiv
Lochan he has collected around Rs. 20 Crore commission from the
contractors, and further handed over to Santosh Kumar, brother of
Munna Singh for giving the same to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.13. Singrai Tuti: Statement of Singrai Tuti, retired Chief Engineer,
JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He
further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the
allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed
as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)60
2026:JHHC:13565
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further
stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir
Alam he has collected around Rs. 18 Crore through Assistant
Engineers against a total tender amount of Rs. 600 Crores. Out of
which 12 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that Sanjeev Kumar Lal told
him that the excess commission amount would be adjusted in future.
He further stated that during one of his visits to Project Bhavan in
April 2023 Minister Alamgir Alamhad asked him about his share in
commission against the allotment of tenders and Alamgir Alam also
told him that his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal would handle the collection of
commission on his behalf and also told him to follow the directions of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal in this regard.
10.14. Surendra Kumar: Statement of Surendra Kumar, Chief
Engineer, RDSD was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia
stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected
by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He
further stated that the commission is 3% of the total LOA, for
allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed
as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further
stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir
Alam he has collected around Rs. 15 Crore through Assistant
Engineers and the same was handed over to Rajeev Kumar Singh, his
known one, and further Rajeev Kumar Singh handed over the same to
Munna Singh for giving it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.15. Pramod Kumar: Statement of Pramod Kumar, Chief Engineer,
JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He
further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the
allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed
as under:
61
2026:JHHC:13565
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further
stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir
Alam he has collected around Rs. 10.5 Crore against total LOAs of
Rs. 300 Crores, through Assistant Engineers. Out of which 7.50 Crore
was handed over to SanjeevKumar Lal. He further stated that he kept
his share of Rs. 1.75 Crore and the rest amount was distributed
among others.
10.16. Rajiv Lochan: Statements of Rajiv Lochan, retired Chief
Engineer, RWD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia
stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected
by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He
further stated that the system of collecting commission from
contractors was prevalent even before he taking the charge as Chief
Engineer in RWD. He further stated that some person of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal used to collect commission amount from his subordinate
assistant engineers time to time. He further stated that Sanjeev Kumar
Lal used to forward his instructions to Assistant Engineers through
Santosh Kumar, Executive Engineer and/or other executive engineers
to collect commission amount, and this system had been continuously
followed. He further stated that he had collected Ra. 9 Crores through
his subordinate engineers, and same was further handed over to
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that the commission is 3% of
total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount
is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
10.17. Ramesh Ojha: Statement of Ramesh Ojha, Retired Assistant
Engineer, RWD and RDSZ was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram instructed and
pressurized him to receive a commission in lie of allotment of tenders.
He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the
62
2026:JHHC:13565
allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed
as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further
stated that the commission was collected by the then Chief Engineer
Veerendra Kumar Ram by his selected personand through him.
Further, he has collected and handed over Rs. 1.5 Crore to Veerendra
Kumar Ram.
10.18. Umesh Kumar: Statement of Umesh Kumar, Executive
Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated
that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the
engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of
allocation of tender in the departments under portfolio of Chief
Engineer Singrai Tuti. He further stated that the commission is 3% of
total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount
is distributed as under: (a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through
his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials He further stated that during his period as
superintending engineer in JSRRDA he has collected around Rs. 3.5
to 3.8 Crore commission amount from contractors through his
executive/assistant Engineers on behalf of his Chief-Engineer Singrai
Tuti and further handed over to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.19. Siddhant Kumar: Statement of Siddhant Kumar, Executive
Engineer, RDSZ was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia
stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram instructed and pressurized him to
receive commission in lieu of allotment of tenders. Similar was the
statement of other engineers, as mentined in the prosecution
complaint.
108. From the statement so recorded of the accused persons as also
of the Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,
JSRRDA and RDSD recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, it is evident that they all
are consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA
is for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is
63
2026:JHHC:13565
distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% to Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials.
109. Role of the present petitioner along with his close allies in the
commission of offence of money laundering, in particular, who have
been arrayed as accused in the second supplementary prosecution, as
mentioned at paragraph 15.1 of the prosecution complaint has been
made. For ready reference, the same is quoted as under:
“15.1 Role of the accused persons in the commission of offence of
money laundering.
1.Alamgir Alam [Accused No. 11]- a) Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i)
Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati
Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development (RDD). Jharkhand
State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural
Development Special Division (RDSD) are the part of the Department
of Rural Works (RWD). RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs the
roads and bridges in the state of Jharkhand, for which tenders are
floated by these departments, against which 3% commission has been
collected. He being the minister of these departments, is all in all and
at the top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection. b) He has
pressurised and compelled the Chief Engineer under his portfolio to
collect commission and give him his share through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal.
c) He has instructed Sanjeev Kumar Lal to collect his 1.35% share in
total commission which is 3% of total tender value(Discussed in detail
in Para 8.2 88.3).
64
2026:JHHC:13565
d) Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed departmental
engineers to hand over the commission part of Alamgir Alam to
Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku Singh.
Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs. 53
crores of commission from such engineers/contractors and handed
over Rs.50 crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam.
Thus, the same amount of PoC was acquired by Alamgir Alam
through Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of
Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search proceedings. e)
Further, it is ascertained from the statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram
and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam also acquired a
commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram
through one engineer of the department and same transaction was also
assisted by Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
f) Thus, Alamgir Alam is found to be directly indulged and actually
involved in possession and concealment of at least Rs 35 crores of the
Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also found
to be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and
concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.
2.Sanjeev Kumar Lal (Accused No.-12): a) He is the PS to Minister
Alamgir Alam, and he has misused his official position for collection
of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.
b) He has pressurised, threatened and instructed the Chief Engineers
and other engineers to collect commission and give him the share of
Minister Alamgir Alam.
c) He is the person who is controlling whole syndicate of collection of
commission against tenders from top to bottom on behalf of Minister
Alamgir Alam.
65
2026:JHHC:13565
d) He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect
commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand
over the same to Jahangir Alam.
e) He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from
Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the same at his
(Jahangir Alam’s) premises safely.
f) He has taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the
commission and integrated the proceeds of crime in immovable and
movable properties in his name and in the name of his family
members and associates. He has purchased immovable properties, plot
alongwith building at Bariyatu, which was also renovated by him and
plot at Pundag, Ranchi in the name of his wife using proceeds of
crime. He has also found to be involved in using PoC more than Rs
2.05 crores, for purchasing immovable properties in the name of
himself, his wife and his close aid Jahangir Alam. Hence, Sanjeev
Kumar Lal is directly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its
concealment, possession, utilisation and acquisition.
g) Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the mastermind and has played vital role in
this syndicate/organized structure of illegal collection of proceeds of
crime.
h) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and
knowingly assisted Alamgir Alam in acquisition, possession and
concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 56
crores.
i) He is also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in the
acquisition and concealment of PoC at least to the tune of Rs. 2.05
crores and claimed the proceeds of crime as untainted.
66
2026:JHHC:13565
j) He has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in
using Proceeds of crime in at least 4 (four) immovable properties
which he acquired in his own name, in name of his wife and his close
aide Jahangir Alam and same four properties have been attached u/s
5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation.
3. Jahangir Alam (Accused No.-13)
(a) Jahangir Alam is close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and has
collected commission on behest of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
(b) Following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he has collected
cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh.
(c) He has played vital role in collection of cash/commission and
concealment of the proceeds of crime clandestinely at his premises.
(d) He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev
Kumar Lal which is commission amount against tenders i.e. Proceeds
of Crime and invested the same in immovable and movable properties
in his name. He has purchased immovable properties, flat at Sir Syed
Residency and plot at Pundag, Ranchi.
(e) Jahangir Alam is the key person who has facilitated the movement
and hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of Crime.
(f) He is found to be directly indulged, actually involved and
knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition, possession and
concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 50
crores approx. and jewellery worth Rs 14.50 lakhs approx.
(g) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and
knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilisation, possession and
concealment of Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 1,10,25,000/- for
67
2026:JHHC:13565
purchasing two immovable properties in his own name and claimed
the proceeds of crime as untainted, which were attached u/s 5(1) of the
PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation vide this PC.
(h) Jahangir Alam has also found to be actually involved and
knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilising Proceeds of crime
in purchasing one vehicle viz. Tata Harrier having Reg. No. JH01DK-
7459 which was seized u/s 17(1-A) of the Act, same vehicle was also
used for commissioning of an offence under the Act, and also being
prayed for confiscation..
110. Herein, it has come in the statement of the accused Veerendra
Kumar Ram that the share of Minister Alamgir Alam was 1.35% of the
allocated tender amount. Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores was
given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department
throughhis PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022. Further, it has
come in the statement of the aforesaid accused that the amount of
commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal (personal secretary of petitioner Alamgir Alam) and a person
named Jahangir Alam who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
collected such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
111. It has further come on record that analysis of the seized mobile
phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
was found as ‘Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister’. It is evident from the
aforesaid complaint that huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was
recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam
i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.
68
2026:JHHC:13565
112. It has further come on record that a total of 18 searches were
conducted u/s 17 of Act 2002, in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on
different dates. As a result of the search huge amount of cash to the tune
of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating
documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various
individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of
proceeds of crime.
113. Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also
stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender
amount is collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers
of the respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect
the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers. It has also come on
record that Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,
JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they
have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the
engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender
allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The
commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which
among the Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)
was 1.35%.
114. Thus, from the complaint it appears that apart from huge cash
as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letter
69
2026:JHHC:13565
heads were found from the premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept
there on the instructions of, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam
RDD minister, which indicates that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the
said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash,
documents/records and other belongings.
115. Thus, from perusal of the entire prosecution complaint prima
facie it appears that the whole modus operandi regarding collection of
commission and later distribution has been illustrated to the respondent
ED by the co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
during their statement’s u/s 50 of PMLA, which are mentioned in Para-
10.1 and 10.3 of the prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2024.
116. Further, the similar is the statements of witnesses Raj Kumar
Toppo, Executive Engineer given in Para-10.8, Ajay Tirkey, Executive
Engineer in Para- 10.9, Ajay Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.10,
Ashok Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer in Para-10.11, Santosh Kumar,
Executive Engineer mentioned in Para-10.12, Singrai Tuti, Retd Chief
Engineer in Para-10.13, Surendra Kumar, Chief Engineer in Para-10.14,
Pramod Kumar, Chief Engineer in Para-10.15, Rajeev Lochan, Chief
Engineer in Para-10.16, Ramesh Ojha, Retd Assistant Engineer in Para-
10.17, Umesh Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.18 and Siddhant
Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.19 as recorded u/s 50 PMLA and
also mentioned in the prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2024.
117. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is settled
connotation of law that at the stage of considering discharge, the duty of
the Court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a
70
2026:JHHC:13565
finding on the basis of broad probabilities and Court should not venture
into the merit of the case by analyzing that whether conviction is
possible or not. Meaning thereby at this stage the Court has to see the
prima facie case only.
118. This Court is now re-adverting to the fact of the case. On
perusal of the Paras- 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 & 8.26 of the prosecution
complaint where the images of the hand written notes etc. have been
mentioned/displayed, which depicts that the accounting of the collections
and distributions of the commission were being maintained in the diaries
or note books seized by the agency from the locations related to the
Personal secretary of the present petitioner, where the code name the
petitioner with his specific share in that commission is also mentioned.
119. Thus, on the basis of the material available in prosecution
complaint the role of the present petitioner in the alleged money
laundering cannot be negated.
120. So far, the issue of non-availability of money trail as raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it has come on the
record that a huge cash of Rs.32.20 crore was recovered and seized from
the premises of Jahangir Alam an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who
was personal Secretary to the Minister i.e. the present petitioner. It is
also pertinent to note that several incriminating notes and pages of
diaries were also found during search and seizure which was maintained
by Sanjeev Kumar Lal recording the share of the minister Alamgir Alam
from the total commission collected from the tenders. By way of Section
50 statement Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the personal Secretary to the
71
2026:JHHC:13565
Minister/petitioner, has admitted the contents of these seized pages and
the fact that he was collecting commission on behalf of the
applicant/minister as recorded in the “Hisab-Kitab‟ seized by ED
corroborates the factum of recovery. He further decoded the code words
and clearly mentioned that the applicant/minister was the beneficiary of
commission amount.
121. Thus, this Court is of prima facie view that the contention of the
petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish the entire money
trail, is without any factual basis and moreover section 3 of PMLA not
requires the entire money trail or where the money eventually went.
122. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement) (2023) 4 SCC 357
observed as follows:
“19. The word “money-laundering” is defined in Section 2(1)(p) of the
Act to have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 3
of the Act makes a person guilty of the offence of money laundering, if
he (1) directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, or (n) knowingly
assists or, (im) knowingly is a party, or (iv) is actually involved in any
process or activity. Such process or activity should be connected to
“proceeds of crime ” including its concealment or possession or
acquisition or use. In addition, a person involved in such process or
activity connected to proceeds of crime, should be projecting or
claiming it as untainted property. The Explanation under Section 3
makes it clear that even if the involvement is in one or more of the
following activities or processes, namely: (i) concealment; (ii)
possession; (im) acquisition; (iv) use; (o) projecting it as untainted
property, or (vi) claiming it as untainted property, the offence of
money-laundering will be made out. 20. Thus, Section 3 comprises of
two essential limbs, namely: (i) involvement in any process or activity,
and (ii) connection of such process or activity to the proceeds of
crime. The expression “proceeds of crime” is defined in Section
2(1)(u) to mean any property derived or obtained, directly or72
2026:JHHC:13565indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence or the value of such property or where such
property is taken or held outside the country, then the property
equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.”
123. In the light of the aforesaid statutory definitions, it can safely
be inferred that it is enough if the prosecution establishes that there was
generation of proceeds of crime and the accused was involved in any
process or activity in connection with the proceeds of crime. Therefore,
it is a considered view of this Court that since concealment of the
proceeds of crime is itself an offence it is not necessary for the
prosecution to establish the money trail.
124. Further, in view of above, prima facie it appears that there is
direct complicity of the petitioner in collecting money through his
private secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal which has come in evidence in the
statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act and the diary
making reference of the said fact showing the complicity of the present
petitioner in collecting commission in lieu of tender.
125. It has been contended that there is no allegation against the
petitioner in ECIR No.-RNSZ0/16/2020 and that the predicate offences,
including Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Jamshedpur P.S. Case No.-13
of 2019 and Economic Offence Wing (EOW) P.S. Case No.-22/2023, are
unrelated to the petitioner.
126. In the aforesaid context, it is pertinent to note that under
Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, money
laundering constitutes an independent offence which extends beyond
individuals directly named in the predicate offence FIR or charge sheet,
and encompasses any person knowingly involved in the concealment,
73
2026:JHHC:13565
possession, acquisition or use of proceeds of crime. The mere
circumstance that the FIR in ACB Jamshedpur P.S. Case No. 13 of 2019
and Charge Sheet No. 001/2020 dated 11.01.2020 do not explicitly name
the Petitioner does not absolve him from scrutiny, inasmuch as the
investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is directed towards tracing
illicit funds and their movement, irrespective of the particulars of the
initial FIR. The subsequent registration of EOW Case No. 22 of 2023,
after the ECIR, involving serious financial crimes under Sections 419,
420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484 and 120-B of the IPC
together with offences under the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of
Liabilities) Act, 2017, has rightly been treated as a predicate offence
under the PMLA, thereby justifying the continued investigation by the
Enforcement Directorate. The investigation has already revealed that
Mukesh Mittal was involved in transferring funds linked to Veerendra
Kumar Ram into the accounts of his wife and father, and such financial
transactions necessarily warrant scrutiny of all individuals connected
with the money trail, including the Petitioner. The absence of a charge
sheet in EOW Case No. 22 of 2023 does not diminish its status as a
predicate offence, since proceedings under the PMLA are not contingent
upon the conclusion of prosecution in the predicate offence. The
Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India(supra) has upheld that ED has the authority to investigate and
attach properties linked to money laundering, even if the accused is not
named in the initial FIR of the predicate offence.
74
2026:JHHC:13565
127. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is not the named accused in the first FIR and as such his
culpability in alleged crime cannot be fully established.
128. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that the provisions
of the PMLA is an independent offence and the investigation conducted
by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, 2002 is triggered after
committing, the commission of a scheduled offence, out of which
proceeds have been generated. During the investigation, there is the
active involvement of the petitioner in the layering, transfer and use as
well as the petitioner entering into transactions to launder the proceeds of
crime generated out of such scheduled offence.
129. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has involved
himself in accumulating proceeds of crime and the aforesaid plea of the
learned counsel for the petitioner doesn’t hold water. Further the Hon’ble
Apex Court in PavnaDibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal
Appeal No. 2779/2023) held that the who could commit an offence
under the PMLA maybe not be named in the scheduled offence.
130. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in
Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three
Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been
observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined
captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime,
directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act
of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an
act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised
75
2026:JHHC:13565
Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money
laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any
process or activity. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income
and irrespective of its volume, the definition of “Proceeds of Crime”
under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been
derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. The property must qualify the definition of “Proceeds of Crime”
under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the
crime property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as
proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of
“Proceeds of Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime
properties.
131. To constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be
derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation
clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or
obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may
directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal
activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that
even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime.
132. At paragraph-14 of the PavanaDibbur (supra) , it has observed
by referring the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) that
the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the
76
2026:JHHC:13565
existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph-15 the finding has been
given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an
offence under Section 3 can be said to be committed after a scheduled
offence is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if
a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly
assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the
use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of
committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not
necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the
PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled
offence.
133. It has further been contended that Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
provides that when any public servant is accused of any offence alleged
to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such
offence, except with previous sanction of the competent authority but
herein the mandate of section 197 Cr. P.C./218 BNSS has not been
followed.
134. In the aforesaid context, it is necessary to observe that at this
stage the concern of this Court is confined to examining the sanctity of
the order rejecting the discharge application. The issue of discharge is
distinct and independent. Herein, the scope of consideration is limited to
whether the order of rejection of discharge application suffers from any
legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting interference.
However, from prosecution complaint, it is evident that the acts
77
2026:JHHC:13565
committed by the Petitioner relating to the offences of money laundering
were not carried out in discharge of his official duties as a public servant,
and therefore it is settled position of law that no sanction would be
necessary if the act of the public servant has not been done in his official
capacity.
135. Further, the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
which is the sole basis of the present petition, in Directorate of
Enforcement vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, (2025) 1 SCC 404 does not
lay down a general law that in all cases of PMLA involving a public
servant there is a need to obtain sanction. It is equally well settled that
Judgments has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case. In
fact, in Bibhu Prasad (supra) the Hon’ble Court in the facts of that case
had noted that”It is not even the allegation in the complaints that the two
respondents were not empowered to do the acts they have done”.
136. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has placed
its reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of P.K.
Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704wherein it has been
observed that The legislative mandate engrafted in sub-section (1) of
Section 197 debarring a court from taking cognizance of an offence
except with the previous sanction of the Government concerned in a case
where the acts complained of are alleged to have been committed by a
public servant in discharge of his official duty or purporting to be in the
discharge of his official duty and such public servant is not removable
from office save by or with the sanction of the Government, touches the
jurisdiction of the court itself.
78
2026:JHHC:13565
137. Thus, there is no dispute to the settled position of law that the
question of invoking Section 197 of the CrPC does not arise for act(s)
which are not a part of the discharge of the official duty. There has to be
a reasonable connection between the discharge of official duty and the
act committed by the official to invoke Section 197 of the CrPC.
138. In the Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 8 SCC 768
the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Section 197 CrPC seeks to
protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an
offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognizance
of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent
authority. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order
to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same
time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must
be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice
and good governance.
139. The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication
of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their
official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged
against the public servant is committed by him “while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” and in order to find
out whether the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting
to act in the discharge of his official duty”, the yardstick to be followed
is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the
accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of
79
2026:JHHC:13565
his duties, reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota
Subbarao, (1993) 3 SCC 339.
140. In the case of Inspector of Police v. Battenapatla Venkata
Ratnam, (2015)13 SCC 87 in Para 11 the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that “the alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating,
fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in
discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not to fabricate
records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the
Revenue. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these crucial aspects.
The learned Magistrate has correctly taken the view that if at all the said
view of sanction is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial
only”
141. Thus, the question of invoking Section 197 of the CrPC does
not arise for act(s) which are not a part of the discharge of the official
duty. There has to be a reasonable connection between the discharge of
official duty and the act committed by the official to invoke Section 197
of the CrPC. Further all the aforesaid view can be well appreciated at the
stage of trial by leading the evidence that whether the alleged act has
nexus in discharge of duty.
142. In the instant case allegations of the nature described in the
prosecution complaint in question, can never be in the discharge of
official duties as acts committed by the Petitioner relating to the offences
of money laundering were not carried out in discharge of his official
duties as a public servant.
80
2026:JHHC:13565
143. So far non-application of Section 5 and 8 of Act 2002 is
concerned, notices are crucial for due process and informing concerned
individuals/defendants about legal proceedings but their absence doesn’t
automatically absolve a petitioner of any connection to the property. In
PMLA cases, the focus is on identifying and confiscating proceeds of
crime, and attachment of property is a common step. The fact that a
notice is not served to one petitioner doesn’t necessarily mean they are
not connected to the property in question, even if it is attached. If the
petitioner feels they are wrongly implicated or that the property is not
theirs, they have legal recourse to challenge the attachment or other
actions taken by the ED. The ED’s investigation and the evidence
presented in court will determine the ownership and the involvement of
each accused, including the petitioner who may not have received a
notice.
144. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the
respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses
and the documents produced by them under Section 50 of the said Act,
to prima facie show the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence
of money laundering under Section 3 thereof.
145. The three Judge Bench the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 held
that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution – ED are
admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make
out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the
81
2026:JHHC:13565
commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
“31. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in
persuading us about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation
under Section 45 of the Act. In the facts of the present case, we are in
agreement with the view taken by the Sessions Court and by the High
Court. We have independently examined the materials relied upon by
the prosecution and also noted the inexplicable silence or reluctance
of the appellant in disclosing the source from where such huge value
of demonetised currency and also new currency has been acquired by
him. The prosecution is relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused
already recorded, out of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High
Court. These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section
50 of the 2002 Act. The same makes out a formidable case about the
involvement of the appellant in commission of a serious offence of
money laundering. It is, therefore, not possible for us to record
satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
appellant is not guilty of such offence. Further, the courts below have
justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for considering the
prayer for bail and concluded that it is not possible to hold that the
appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable to the 2002
Act while on bail. Since the threshold stipulation predicated in Section
45 has not been overcome, the question of considering the efficacy of
other points urged by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour
the appellant with the relief of regular bail will be of no avail. In
otherwords, the fact that the investigation in the predicate offence
instituted in terms of FIR No. 205/2016 or that the investigation qua
the appellant in the complaint CC No. 700 of 2017 is completed; and
that the proceeds of crime are already in possession of the
investigating agency and provisional attachment order in relation
thereto passed on 13-2-2017 has been confirmed; or that charge-sheet
has been filed in FIR No. 205/2016 against the appellant without his
arrest; that the appellant has been lodged in judicial custody since 2-
1-2017 and has not been interrogated or examined by the
Enforcement Directorate thereafter; all these will be of no
consequence.
82
2026:JHHC:13565
146. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek
Banerjee &Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 9 SCC 22 has
again made similar observations:
“21. …Section 160 which falls under Ch. XII empowers the police
officer making an investigation under the said chapter to require any
person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who,
from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process
envisaged by Section 50 PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against
the proceeds of crime and is not “investigation” in strict sense of the
term for initiating prosecution; and the authorities referred to in
Section 48 PMLA are not the police officers as held in Vijay Madanlal
[Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] .
22. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the
statements recorded by the authorities under Section 50 PMLA are not
hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such
statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are
deemed to be the judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and
are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any
person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Ch.
XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the
purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of
such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Sections
160/161CrPC, the provisions of Section would prevail in terms of
Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof.”
147. In light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it is evident
that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA hold evidentiary
value and are admissible in legal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while emphasizing the legal sanctity of such statements, observed
that they constitute valid material upon which reliance can be placed to
sustain allegations under the PMLA.
148. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also
reaffirmed the admissibility of Section 50 of the PMLA distinguishing
83
2026:JHHC:13565
them from statements recorded under the CrPC. The Court underscored
that such statements, being recorded during an inquiry rather than an
investigation, are not subject to the restrictions under Article 20(3) and
Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, they are deemed to be judicial
proceedings under Section 50(4) of the PMLA and, therefore, admissible
as evidence in proceedings under the PMLA. The Hon’ble Apex Court
further clarified that the provisions of Section 50 of the PMLA having an
overriding effect by virtue of Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA prevail
over the procedural safeguards under the CrPC.
149. In the case of Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director 2023 INSC
1006 the Hon’ble Apex Court while relying upon the ratio rendered by
the three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit
Tandon (supra)has observed thatthe statements of witnesses/ accused
are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the said Act and such
statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the
accused in the commission of a serious offence of money laundering. For
ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted as under:
“14. The first and foremost contention raised by learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Luthra would be that the appellant was not named in the
FIR nor in first three prosecution/supplementary complaints and has
been implicated only on the basis of the statements of witnesses
recorded pursuant to the summons issued under Section 50 of the
PML Act, without there being any material in support thereof.
15.In our opinion, there is hardly any merit in the said submission of
Mr. Luthra. In Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11
SCC 46, a three Judge Bench has categorically observed that the
statements of witnesses/ accused are admissible in evidence in view
of Section 50 of the said Act and such statements may make out a84
2026:JHHC:13565formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the
commission of a serious offence of money laundering. Further, as
held in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the offence of money laundering
under Section 3 of the Act is an independent offence regarding the
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had
been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or
in relation to a scheduled offence. The offence of money laundering
is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled
offence or predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date
is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the
person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession,
acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence
of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.”
150. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible in
evidence and can be relied upon to establish culpability in money
laundering cases. Further in the instant case, the supplementary
prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2024, filed against the petitioner and
twelve co-accused persons, is supported by substantial evidence gathered
during the investigation and is not solely reliant on the statements of the
petitioner and his accomplices.
151. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of
investigation statement so recorded of the accused persons as also of the
statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and
RDSD and the witnesses were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, who all are
consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for
the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed
in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS Sanjeev
85
2026:JHHC:13565
Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% to Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials.
152. In the present case, the investigating agency has relied not only
on the statement of co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA but also
other evidences which indicate the applicant’s active role in the alleged
money laundering activities.
153. Thus, from the entire discussion it is evident that the petitioner
is an influential person being Cabinet Minister in the State of Jharkhand
and the evidence collected during investigation by the agency broadly
speaks that the co accused Veerandra Kumar Ram used to collect
commission in terms of allocation of tender and execution of work and
the said commission/fixed share of 1.35% was distributed among his
seniors and politicians and the said commission is also collected by co-
accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal, P.S. of the present petitioner through
certain persons. It has also been submitted that during the investigation,
it has been ascertained that the entire collection and distribution of
commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the
Rural Development Special Division and RuralWorks Department.
Further, it was also found that the share of the petitioner, who was the
Minister, was 1.35% of the allocated tender amount and also, in one of
the instances, it was found that the petitioner had received his share of
commission of Rs. 3 Crore which was sent by one Assistant Engineer in
September 2022 which was facilitated by one of his close persons.
154. Further during statement made under Section 50 of PMLA,
2002 and in one of the instances Veerendra Kumar Ram disclosed that
86
2026:JHHC:13565
crores of the commission were handed over to the co-accused Sanjeev
Kumar Lal, Personal Secretary of the present petitioner, in September
2022. It has also come that co-accused Jahangir Alam was assisting
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and was hoarding the said commission on the
instruction of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the said Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes
care of the collection of commission, and Jahangir Alam collected the
same at the instruction of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, who in turn was doing so
on behalf of the present petitioner.
155. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered
in course of investigation, is of the prima facie view that what has been
argued on behalf of the petitioner that he is nowhere related with
proceeds of crime is not fit to be acceptable because as would appear
from the preceding paragraphs, money which has been alleged to be
obtained by the petitioner/accused has been routed through his Private
Secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal.If there is a prima facie material to show
that the amount has been received by misusing the position of the
petitioner that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is
not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds
of crime was projected as untainted money subsequently.
156. This is in view of the amendment that was made to Section 3 of
PMLA through Act 23 of 2019. This position was also made clear by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement.V. Padmanabhan
Kishore reported in 2022 SCC Online SC1490. For ready reference, the
relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:
“12. The definition of “proceeds of crime” in the PML Act, inter alia,
means any property derived or obtained by any person as a result of87
2026:JHHC:13565criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The offences
punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 are scheduled offences, as is
evident from Para 8 of Part A of the Schedule to the PML Act. Any
property thus derived as a result of criminal activity relating to
offence mentioned in said Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule would
certainly be “proceeds of crime”. 14. The said Section 3 states, inter
alia, that whoever knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is
actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds
of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use
shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering (emphasis added by
us).”
157. Further, at the stage of recording statements during enquiry, it
cannot be construed as an investigation for prosecution. The process
envisaged under Section 50 of PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry
against the proceeds of crime and it is not an investigation and the
authorities who are recording the statements are not police officers and
therefore, these statements can be relied upon as admissible piece of
evidence before the Court. The summons proceedings and recording of
statements under PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings
under Section 50(4) of PMLA. When such is the sweep of Section 50 of
PMLA, the statements that have been recorded by the respondent and
which have been relied upon in thecomplaint must be taken to be an
important material implicating the petitioner. The co-accused or the
suspected persons in the predicate offence cannot automatically be
brought within the same status in the PMLA proceedings and it is always
left open to the authorities to deal with them as witnesses.
158. Further, the legal presumption under Section 24(a) of the Act
2002, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of
money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process
88
2026:JHHC:13565
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The
existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be
established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person
in any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational
facts are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the
person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to rebut the legal
presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money-
laundering, by producing evidence which is within personal knowledge
of the accused.
159. The statements that were recorded from the witnesses during
the investigation have been dealt with in prosecution complaint and
many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the
statements that have been recorded from the witnesses and which has
been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie indicates the
offence of money laundering against the present petitioner.
160. Further, the argument that there was no criminal intent (mens
rea) is not tenable because at this stage criminal intent (mens rea) cannot
be appreciated and the same can be appreciated in the full blown trial by
leading the evidences by the parties.
161. Thus, upon perusal of the case record, it is evident that
cognizanceof the offence has already been taken for commission of the
offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002.
162. The prosecution complaint discloses that the Petitioner, being a
Cabinet Minister of the State of Jharkhand, was allegedly indulged in
89
2026:JHHC:13565
collection of commission/bribes through his associates for allotment of
tenders floated by RWD, RDSD and JSRRDA under his official
authority, relating to construction of roads, bridges and other government
buildings. The co-accused, Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar
Lal, in their statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA (vide
Paras 10.1 and 10.3 of the complaint dated 04.07.2024), have directly
indicated towards the involvement of the Petitioner. Further,
departmental engineers, in their statements recorded by the Investigating
Officer (Paras 10.8 to 10.19 of the complaint), have disclosed the modus
operandi and participation of the Petitioner in the alleged transactions. It
is further alleged that huge sums to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crores, being
proceeds of crime, were recovered from various locations associated
with the Petitioner either directly or through his Personal Secretary,
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, who is a co-accused.
163. The prosecution complaint (Paras 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 and
8.26) makes reference to seized diaries and notebooks containing
handwritten entries evidencing the accounting of collections and
distribution of commission, wherein the Petitioner is identified by code
name with specific mention of his share. From such materials, it is
manifest that ample evidentiary foundation exists on record which, at
this stage, prima facie indicates the culpability of the Petitioner in the
alleged commission of the offence.
164. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate
of Enforcement and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 560 has observed
90
2026:JHHC:13565
that as established in multiple judicial pronouncements, cases involving
economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth the complete
chain of events, financial transactions, and culpability of the accused,
therefore the material submitted by the respondent, coupled with the
broad legislative framework of the PMLA, indicates the necessity of
allowing the trial to proceed and not discharging the appellant at the
nascent stage of charge framing and discharging the appellant at this
stage would be premature and contrary to the principles governing the
prosecution in money laundering cases, for ready reference the relevant
paragraphs are being quoted as under:
“30. The PMLA was enacted with the primary objective of preventing
money laundering and confiscating the proceeds of crime, thereby
ensuring that such illicit funds do not undermine the financial system.
Money laundering has far-reaching consequences, not only in terms of
individual acts of corruption but also in causing significant loss to the
public exchequer. The laundering of proceeds of crime results in a
significant loss to the economy, disrupts lawful financial transactions,
and erodes public trust in the system. The alleged offences in the
present case have a direct bearing on the economy, as illicit financial
transactions deprive the state of legitimate revenue, distort market
integrity, and contribute to economic instability. Such acts, when
committed by persons in positions of power, erode public confidence
in governance and lead to systemic vulnerabilities within financial
institutions.
31. The illegal diversion and layering of funds have a cascading
effect, leading to revenue losses for the state and depriving legitimate
sectors of investment and financial resources. It is settled law that in
cases involving serious economic offences, judicial intervention at a
preliminary stage must be exercised with caution, and proceedings
should not be quashed in the absence of compelling legal grounds.
The respondent has rightly argued that in cases involving allegations
of such magnitude, a trial is imperative to establish the full extent of
wrongdoing and to ensure accountability.
91
2026:JHHC:13565
32. The PMLA was enacted to combat the menace of money
laundering and to curb the use of proceeds of crime in the formal
economy. Given the evolving complexity of financial crimes, courts
must adopt a strict approach in matters concerning economic offences
to ensure that perpetrators do not exploit procedural loopholes to
evade justice.
33. The present case involves grave and serious allegations of
financial misconduct, misuse of position, and involvement in
transactions constituting money laundering. The appellant seeks an
end to the proceedings at a preliminary stage, effectively preventing
the full adjudication of facts and evidence before the competent forum.
However, as established in multiple judicial pronouncements, cases
involving economic offences necessitate a thorough trial to unearth
the complete chain of events, financial transactions, and culpability of
the accused.
34. The material submitted by the respondent, coupled with the broad
legislative framework of the PMLA, indicates the necessity of allowing
the trial to proceed and not discharging the appellant at the nascent
stage of charge framing. The argument that the proceedings are
unwarranted is devoid of substance in light of the statutory objectives,
the continuing nature of the offence, and the significant financial
implications arising from the alleged acts. Discharging the appellant
at this stage would be premature and contrary to the principles
governing the prosecution in money laundering cases.”
165. Thus, from perusal of case record, statements of witnesses,
materials available on record and in view of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered view that prima-facie sufficient materials are available on
record for framing of charge against the present petitioner.
166. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631 has observed
that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot
be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such
powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the
92
2026:JHHC:13565
manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional
powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar
against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of
charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they
are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence for which the accused has been charged.
167. Thus, it is evident that the revisional power can only be
exercised to correct patent error of law or procedure which would
occasion unfairness, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be
compared with the appellate power. A Revisional Court cannot
undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is
undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only
be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the
proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be
true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence for which the accused has been charged.
168. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of
Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 has held that
interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is
called for in the rarest of the rare cases only to correct the patent error of
jurisdiction.
169. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v.
R. Soundirarasu, (supra) has held at paragraphs-81 to 83 as under:
“81. The High Court has acted completely beyond the settled
parameters, as discussed above, which govern the power to discharge
the accused from the prosecution. The High Court could be said to
have donned the role of a chartered accountant. This is exactly what93
2026:JHHC:13565this Court observed in Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [CBI v.
Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) 18 SCC 135]. The High
Court has completely ignored that it was not at the stage of trial or
considering an appeal against a verdict in a trial. The High Court has
enquired into the materials produced by the accused persons,
compared with the information compiled by the investigating agency
and pronounced a verdict saying that the explanation offered by the
accused persons deserves to be accepted applying the doctrine of
preponderance of probability. This entire exercise has been justified
on account of the investigating officer not taking into consideration
the explanation offered by the public servant and also not taking into
consideration the lawful acquired assets of the wife of the public
servant i.e. Respondent 2 herein.
82. By accepting the entire evidence put forward by the accused
persons applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, the
case put up by the prosecution cannot be termed as “groundless”. As
observed by this Court in C.S.D. Swami [C.S.D. Swami v. State, AIR
1960 SC 7] that the accused might have made statements before the
investigating officer as to his alleged sources of income, but the same,
strictly, would not be evidence in the case. 83. Section 13(1)(e) of the
1988 Act makes a departure from the principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to
prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the
accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of
Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the
accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known
sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would
mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known
to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the
accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands.
The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory
explanation. The accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this
onus upon him at the stage of Section 239CrPC. At the stage of
Section 239CrPC, the court has to only look into the prima facie case
and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless.”
170. It requires to refer herein that the ambit and scope of exercise of
power of discharge, are fairly well settled which has been elaborately
discussed in the preceding paragraphs and as per settled proposition of
94
2026:JHHC:13565
law, neither comprehensive assessment of the materials or meticulous
consideration of the possible defence need to be undertaken at this stage
nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be
undertaken at this stage. The only deliberation at the stage of discharge is
“as to whether prima facie case was made out or not and whether the
accused is required to be further tried or not”.
171. Further, it is well settled that the revisional power cannot be
paralleled with appellate power. The Revisional Court cannot undertake
meticulous examination of the material on record as is undertaken by the
Trial Court or the Appellate Court.
172. Learned Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi, upon due consideration
of the active and conscious role of the petitioner in knowingly assisting
his co-accused persons, namely Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam and
others, in the illegal acquisition of commission in lieu of allotment of
tenders of RWD, JSRRDA, RDSD and RDSZ, and further taking note of
the cogent evidences relied upon in the supplementary prosecution
complaint dated 04.07.2024, has rightly rejected the discharge
application of the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2024 and consequent
thereto passed the order of framing of charge vide order dated
07.12.2024. The discharge application filed by the Petitioner was
rejected only after satisfaction that sufficient grounds exist to proceed
against him and consequently, order for framing of charge has also been
passed. The said orders, being founded upon a proper appreciation of
material on record, is just, proper and does not warrant any interference.
95
2026:JHHC:13565
173. Hence, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and taking
into consideration the settled position of law as discussed and referred
hereinabove and further taking into consideration the ratio of the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep
Nirankarnath Sharma Versus Directorate of Enforcement and
Another (supra), this court is of the considered view that there is no
illegality in the impugned orders dated 03.12.2024 and 07.12.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, in connection with
ECIR Case No. 02/2023.
174. Accordingly, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to
interfere with the impugned orders dated 03.12.2024 and 07.12.2024.
175. In view thereof, the instant criminal revision petitions are
hereby, dismissed.
176. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
177. It is made clear that any observations made herein are prima-
facie for consideration of issue involved in the instant revision petitions
and view expressed herein shall not be construed as an expression on the
merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter
uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide
the case strictly in accordance with law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated:06.05.2026
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On: 7.5.2026
96
