Madras High Court
S.Nagarajan vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 19 February, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on 23.01.2026
Order pronounced on 19.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11357 of 2024
S.Nagarajan
S/o.V.S.Soodam Mani,
No.68, 4th Floor, CP Ramaswamy Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. … Petitioner/
2nd Accused
Vs
Directorate of Enforcement,
Rep by the Assistant Director,
Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
II & III Floor, Murugesa Naicker Office Complex,
No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006
(ECIIR/CEZO/11/2013) …Respondent/
Complainant
____________
Page 1 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records
pertaining to the order dated 30.05.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.4274 of
2023 in C.C.No.3 of 2020 in ECIR/CEZO/11/2013 passed by the learned II
Additional District Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s): M/s S.Elambharathi
D.Venkatachalam
For Respondent(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Assistant Solicitor General of India
Assisted by Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
ORDER
Factual Background
An entity named ‘Olympus Granites (P) Limited’ (Olympus
Granites’) applied for grant of lease to quarry multi-coloured granite over
an extent of 1.21.5 hectares in SF No.259 / 4B2 of Keelavalavu Village,
Melur, Madurai District, for a period of 30 years under Rule 19A of the
Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1959. By G.O.(3D) No.46,
Industries (MMB-1) Department dated 14.07.2008, the Government of
____________
Page 2 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
Tamil Nadu granted a quarry lease to Olympus Granites for a period of 20
years subject to specific conditions. The said order also directed the
execution of an agreement in the prescribed form. Such agreement was
executed on 13.08.2008. Pursuant thereto, Olympus Granites undertook
quarrying activities in financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13 and paid seigniorage fees of Rs.45,37,692/-. Granite blocks
extracted from the quarry were transported after obtaining transport
permits.
2. Subsequently, the quarry lease was cancelled on 06.09.2012 for
the alleged violation of the condition pertaining to maintenance of a safety
distance of 10 metres between the leased land and the Government
poromboke land. A complaint in relation to illicit quarrying of granites was
filed on 06.08.2012 by the Village Administrative Officer, Keelavalavu
District, before the Keelavalavu Police Station. The complaint was inter
alia under Sections 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and
Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and
Loss) Act, 1992 (the TNPPDL Act) read with Sections 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) and
____________
Page 3 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
21(b) and 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957. Based on the complaint, Crime No.161 of 2012 dated 06.08.2012 was
registered against Olympus Granites and two others. The final report was
filed on 13.11.2017 before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, in respect of
offences under Section 120B read with Sections 447, 379, 409, 411, 420,
434, 468, 471, 304(ii), 109, 114, 511 IPC r/w. Sections 109, 116, 119 & 202
thereof; Sections 6 read with Sections 3(a) & 4(a) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the TNPPDL Act. PRC No. 30 of
2018 was assigned and cognisance was taken on 13.06.2018.
3. On the ground that some of the alleged offences in relation to the
predicate offence of illicit quarrying are scheduled offences under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (the PMLA), pursuant to letter
dated 11.07.2013 from the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, the
Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR bearing
No.ECIR/CEZ0/11-2013, dated 18.09.2013, for conducting investigation
under the said statute. The prosecution in respect of the predicate offence
is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur. Meanwhile, proceedings
____________
Page 4 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
in relation to prosecution under the PMLA were instituted in C.C. No.
3/2020 before the 2nd Additional District Court (CBI cases), Madurai. The
revision petitioner herein was arrayed as the second accused therein. He
filed Crl.M.P.No.4274 of 2023 seeking discharge. The discharge petition
was dismissed under the impugned order dated 30.05.2024.
4. This revision petition is directed against order dated 30.05.2024
and was listed before the Division Bench of this Court. Justice
G.R.Swaminathan held that the impugned order did not contain a
discussion of the materials on record and did not demonstrate as to how a
prima facie case is made out against the revision petitioner. On that
ground, it was held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and
the matter remitted to the file of the trial Judge for fresh consideration of
the discharge petition. Justice R.Poornima dissented and concluded that
the revision petitioner did not make out a case for discharge and that the
rejection of the discharge petition was on the basis of prima facie
examination of the material on record. Pursuant to order dated 15.09.2025
of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter was placed before me for
____________
Page 5 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
consideration in the above facts and circumstances.
Counsel and their contentions
5. Oral arguments on behalf of the petitioner were advanced by
Mr.S.Elambharathi. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor
General, assisted by Mr.K. Govindarajan, learned Deputy Solicitor
General, advanced arguments on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement.
Both parties also filed written submissions.
6. The first contention on behalf of the revision petitioner was that
no independent investigation was carried out under the PMLA. By
referring to paragraphs 73 and 74 of the impugned order, learned counsel
contended that no reasons are set out therein in support of the conclusion
that there was an independent investigation. The next contention of
learned counsel was that proceedings cannot be initiated under the PMLA
unless there are proceeds of crime relating to the predicate offence.
____________
Page 6 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
Learned counsel contended that the impugned order does not contain any
reason in support of the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence of
proceeds of crime.
7. While considering a discharge petition, he contended that the trial
court was required to examine the materials so as to assess whether there
is sufficient ground to frame charges and proceed with the matter. After
submitting that such prima facie consideration and discussion of the
materials is absent in the impugned order, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Emta Coal Mines
Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 SCC OnLine 2250,
particularly paragraphs 20.1 to 20.5 thereof. For the same proposition,
reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Karan Talwar v. the State of Tamil Nadu, SLP (Crl.) No. 10736 of 2022,
judgment dated 19.12.2024.
____________
Page 7 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
8. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay
Madanlal Chowdary v. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929],
learned counsel contended that the expression “proceeds of crime” in
Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA should be construed strictly and that the
properties of the petitioner would not constitute proceeds of crime unless
there is prima facie evidence that they were derived or obtained as a result
of criminal activity related to a scheduled offence. He also relied on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Director of
Enforcement, 2024 INSC 512, to contend that the power of judicial review
continues to apply even in the context of the PMLA.
9. In response to these contentions, Mr.Sundaresan opened his
submissions by referring to the wide definition of money laundering and
proceeds of crime in Section 3 read with 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. By referring
to Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA, he submitted that ‘property’ is also defined
widely to include movable, immovable and even intangible property.
10. He submitted that the Sagayam Committee was appointed by this
____________
Page 8 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
Court to probe into alleged unlawful granite mining activities in Madurai
District and that a report was submitted on 19.05.2012 to the Principal
Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. He also
pointed out that the District Collector constituted a special expert
committee which submitted a report to the effect that Olympus Granites
had illegally mined and transported granite and thereby caused the loss of
Rs.256.44 crore to the Government.
11. He also submitted that crime No.161 of 2012 was registered in
respect thereof and that the charge sheet was filed before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Melur, after completion of investigation in relation to
the predicate offence. Since the predicate offence included scheduled
offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC read with Section 3 of
the Explosive Substances Act, he submitted that a letter was sent by the
Superintendent of Police informing the Directorate of Enforcement about
the filing of the charge sheet in Crime No.161 of 2012. Thereafter, he
submitted that independent investigation was carried out under the PMLA
and a complaint was lodged before the Special Court, which was taken
____________
Page 9 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
cognizance of as C.C.No.3 of 2020.
12. After submitting that the reports of Mr.Sagayam and
Mr.Mohandas are sufficient to justify dismissal of this revision petition,
learned Additional Solicitor General referred to documents filed along
with the complaint. In particular, he relied upon the Government Order
granting the quarry licence (Annexure – 8), the agreement dated
13.08.2008 between Olympus Granites and the Government of Tamil
Nadu (Annexure 9), G.O.(D) No.161 dated 06.09.2022 cancelling the
quarry licence (Annexure 10), the statements issued by the revision
petitioner on 04.09.2014 and 01.07.2015 under Section 50 of the PMLA
before the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai
(Annexure 14) and sale deeds relating to properties purchased by the
revision petitioner (Annexure 26).
13. By adverting to the impugned order, learned Additional Solicitor
General contended that the order should be read in entirety and that
paragraphs 51, 55 and 67 thereof indicate that the trial court applied its
____________
Page 10 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
mind to all the materials on record, including the documents referred to
above, which were filed as annexures to the complaint. If read in entirety
in the context of the above documents, he contended that no case is made
out to interfere with the dismissal of the discharge petition. He relied on
Captain Manjeet Singh Virdi (Retd) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and
Ors, 2023 (7) SCC 633 and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao,
2023 SCC Online SC 1294 to contend that the scope of discharge is limited
and the current case does not fall within that scope.
Discussion, analysis and conclusion
14. The agreed position is that cognisance was taken by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Melur, under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) in relation to alleged offences under multiple provisions
of the IPC and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Out of the alleged
offences, the offences under Section 120B, 411, 420, 471 and Sections 3
and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act are Scheduled Offences under
Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA. The revision petitioner, however, maintains
that the ingredients of these Scheduled Offences are not satisfied.
____________
Page 11 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
15. The question that falls for consideration is, therefore, whether the
trial court committed an error in dismissing the discharge petition thereby
warranting inference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. A discharge
petition would be liable to be allowed if the trial court were to conclude
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Given
the stage at which such petition is considered by the trial court, only
prima facie assessment is feasible.
16. The offence of “money laundering” is defined in Section 3 of the
PMLA 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,-
____________
Page 12 of 27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
(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, namely:-
(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.”
17. The text of Section 3 reveals that the offence of money laundering
is committed if a person directly or indirectly attempts to indulge in or
knowingly assists or knowingly is a party to or is involved in any process or
____________
Page 13 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Such process or activity
includes the concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection or
claiming of the proceeds of crime. It follows from the above that the
critical requirement is direct or indirect involvement with the proceeds of
crime.
18. The expression “proceeds of crime” is defined in Section 2(1)(u)
of the PMLA as under:
“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 or where such property is taken or held
outside the country, then the property equivalent in value
held within the country 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;”____________
Page 14 of 27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
19. Because property is at the heart of the above definition, it is also
necessary to consider the definition of property. Property is defined in
Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA as under:
“(v) “property” means any property or assets of every description,
whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible
or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title
to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.
Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified
that the term “property” includes property of any kind used in the
commission of an offence under this Act or any of the scheduled
offences;”
20. From the definition of “proceeds of crime”, it is clear that it
pertains to any property, derived or obtained, whether directly or
indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity related to a
scheduled offence. The Explanation appears to expand the scope by
including any property which is directly or indirectly derived or obtained
as a result of any criminal activity related to the scheduled offence. The
definition of property covers movable, immovable and even intangible
____________
Page 15 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
property. Against this factual background, a brief consideration of the
materials on record is warranted.
21. In the course of investigation under the PMLA, the statement of
the revision petitioner was recorded on 04.09.2014 and 09.09.2014
purportedly in terms of Section 50 thereof. These statements were
annexed to the complaint as Annexure 14. The statement allegedly made
by him when questioned in relation to the immovable properties
purchased by him is scanned and reproduced below:
____________
Page 16 of 27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 202422.
The
details of
fixed
assets
purchased by the revision petitioner and allegedly provided while making
the above statement are scanned and reproduced below:
23. As is noticeable from the alleged response to the question
regarding the properties belonging to the revision petitioner, except the
properties at Sl.Nos.15 and 16 of the table reproduced above, he has
admitted that all the other properties stand in his name and belong to him.
____________
Page 17 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
The sale
deeds
pertaining to these properties were annexed to the complaint as Annexure
26.
24. In the impugned order, the trial court has taken note of the fact
that the revision petitioner was the Managing Director of Olympus
____________
Page 18 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
Granites. The trial court also took note of the fact that the charge sheet
under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. covers scheduled offences as defined
under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. At paragraph 50 of the impugned
order, the trial court noticed the respondent’s averments with regard to
the recording of the voluntary statement of the accused under Section 50
of the PMLA, the independent investigation in relation to the offence of
money laundering, the bank statement and property documents of the
accused. Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the impugned order are set out below:
“54) The petitioner incubated the pecuniary benefits
which resulted in further accruals of proceeds of crime and
same were camouflaged in the organizational system as
business income/earnings. The petitioner has given voluntary
statement on 9.9.2014, that he had furnished 21 immovable
properties acquired during the period from 19.05.2003 to
04.07.2011. On perusal of the statement out of 21 properties/
16 were acquired after the commencement of activities of
OGPL which was showed as legal sales in the books of
accounts. Hence the properties of petitioner/A2 as being
involved in the offence of money-laundering, are liable to be____________
Page 19 of 27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024confiscated to the Central Government in terms of Sub-section
(5) of Section 8 of PMLA, 2002.
55) The respondent has further stated that the illegally mine
granite in the south side of the area permitted for quarrying
i.e. Survey No. 259/482 which was Paramboke Land belongs
to the Government in Survey No.297/SD Bit and used the
explosive substances to quarry. Further the petitioner/A2
alleged to have prepared forged document undertaking dated
25.07.2008 and submitted to the Government, made the
Government to believe the contents, executed in the license in
agreement dated 13.08.2008 with the District Collector,
submitted the same to the Melur SRO on 18.8.2008 and
registered the document as document no.4176/2008 only to
cheat the Government. Therefore, there are serious
allegations that the petitioner has illegal mining by way of
forged documents and caused loss to the Government and
also wrongful gain for themselves.”
25. It is recorded at paragraph 54 that 16 properties were acquired by
the revision petitioner after the commencement of activities of Olympus
____________
Page 20 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
Granites. At paragraph 69, the trial court has expressly recorded that the
FIR registered in Crime No.161 of 2012, ECIR dated 18.09.2013, the
statement given by A2/ A. Nagarajan and the evaluation report were
perused. At paragraph 74, it is recorded that the Directorate of
Enforcement has followed the procedure laid down under the PMLA in
Sections 5, 6, 17, 18 and 19 while recording the statement under Section 50
thereof. As regards the movable and immovable properties involved in this
case, the trial court has recorded that any conclusions regarding the same,
including whether they constitute proceeds of crime, may be reached only
after adducing evidence at trial.
26. Eventually, the following conclusions were recorded at
paragraphs 76 and 77:
“76) Therefore on perusal of the available documents
relied by the respondent/ Complainant, this Court is of the
view that there are prima facie evidence against the
petitioner to proceed under PML Act and also for other
offences. The allegation stated by the petitioner u/s.227____________
Page 21 of 27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024Cr.P.C cannot thrown away the materials by the respondent/
complainant at the initial stage only by analyzing evidence
adduced, this Court will come to the conclusion that the
allegations against the petitioner is proved or not. Therefore
for the above said reasons, this Court is of the view that the
various allegations leveled by the petitioner against the
respondent/ complainant cannot be decided without
adducing elaborate evidence by the respondent/complainant.
Further this Court is not inclined to allow this petition relying
the allegations made by the petitioner /A2 and that too prima
facie case against the petitioner/A2. The investigation
conducted by the respondent complainant seems to be prima
facie is proper and legal, if there is any contravention of
Mines and Minerals Act, can be decided at later part of the
trial.
77) Considering the way in which the investigation was
conduced by the respondent/ complainant and the materials
available in this case and the reports of Collector Shri.
U.Sagayam IAS, Special officer/ legal commissioner
appointed by Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
and the report submitted by the Revenue Department,
District Collector and the evaluation report submitted by the____________
Page 22 of 27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024Shri.N.C. Mohandas, Deputy Director, Geology and Mines,
this Court feels that there are materials to proceed against the
petitioner for the alleged offences u/s. 120B of IPC r/w Sec.
447, 379, 409, 411, 420, 434, 468, 471, 304 (ii), 109, 114, 511
rive Section 109, 116, 119 & 202 of IPC and Section 6 r/w
Section 3(a) & 4(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sec.
4 of TNPPDL Act. Therefore this Court is not inclined to allow
this Petition.”
27. If the conclusions in paragraphs 76 and 77 were looked at in
isolation, an inference could be drawn that reasons in support of the
conclusions do not find place therein. However, the said paragraphs
cannot be looked at in isolation and the impugned order should be
considered as a whole. As noted earlier, at paragraph 69, the trial court has
taken cognizance of the FIR registered in Crime No.161 of 2012, ECIR
dated 18.09.2013, the statement given by A2/ A. Nagarajan and the
evaluation report. At paragraph 74, it has noticed that the ED has followed
the prescribed procedure while recording the statement under Section 50
of the PMLA. It has also further recorded therein that perusal of the ECIR
____________
Page 23 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
reveals that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the
petitioner. It is pertinent to underscore that while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 227, the trial court is not required to make a roving inquiry;
it is only required to sift through and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether there is a prima facie case to proceed
against the petitioner.
28. When the earlier paragraphs of the impugned order are viewed
conjunctively with the concluding paragraphs, it appears that the trial
court, after taking stock of the rival contentions, came to the conclusion,
on a prima facie basis, that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the
case. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that requisite sanction was
not obtained or that there is any other ground on which the prosecution is
barred. Consequently, the revision petitioner has failed to establish that
the rejection of the discharge petition was on account of non-application of
mind or was otherwise perverse warranting interference in exercise of
jurisdiction in a revision petition.
____________
Page 24 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
29. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed without any order as to costs. For the avoidance of doubt, it is
clarified that no conclusions or findings have been recorded on the merits
of the matter, including as to whether any of the assets referred to in the
complaint qualify as proceeds of crime under the PMLA.
19.02.2026
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kal
____________
Page 25 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
To
Directorate of Enforcement,
Rep by the Assistant Director,
Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
II & III Floor, Murugesa Naicker Office Complex,
No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006
(ECIIR/CEZO/11/2013)
____________
Page 26 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
Pre-delivery order made in
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1025 of 2024
&
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11357 of 2024
19.02.2026
____________
Page 27 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 05:35:49 pm )