Pmla case quashed
MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W. P.Nos.4297 & 4300 of 2025and
W.M.P.Nos.4807 & 4809 of 2025
[20/07, 09:14] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxSUUOys9m5Go2vqou2SoqSux1LnV1HKgY?si=mh-GIQ8jY1tiW6Tp
[20/07, 09:15] Sekarreporter: Article by sekarreporter
[20/07, 09:15] Sekarreporter: : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W. P.Nos.4297 & 4300 of 2025and
W.M.P.Nos.4807 & 4809 of 2025
: Prayer in W.P.No.4297 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records and to quash the order under Section 17(1-A) of the PMLA 2002 dated 31.01.2025 freezing the fixed deposits on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
Prayer in W.P.No.4300 of 2025: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from proceeding in investigation since there are no proceeds of crime or in the alternative restrict such investigation to matters connected with the coal block until its cancellation.
(In both cases):
For Petitioner
: Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramachandran
For Respondents
: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General
Assisted by
Mr.N.Ramesh
Special Public Prosecutor (ED) C O M M O N O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by
[20/07, 08:58] Sekarreporter: .A careful perusal of Section 66(2) of PMLA points out that if during the course of investigation, the ED comes across violations of other provisions of law, then it cannot assume the role of investigating those offences also. It is to inform the appropriate agency, which is empowered by law to investigate into that offence. If that Agency, on the intimation from the ED, commences investigation and registers a complaint, then certainly the ED can investigate into those aspects also, provided there are “proceeds of crime”. In case, the investigating agency does not find any case with respect to the aspects pointed out by the ED, then the ED cannot suo motu proceed with the
investigation and assume powers. The essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and “proceeds of crime”. The ED is not a loitering munition or drone to attack at will on any criminal activity.
62.As there is no predicate offence with respect to the three aspects in paragraph No.7 of the counter, we conclude that the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error and the order of attachment is per se without jurisdiction. We come to this conclusion because this is not a case where the CBI is yet to come up with the offence. The Supreme Court had directed registration of the offence in 2014. The complaint was also registered in the year 2015. After a period of nine years, the ED’s jurisdiction to attach and investigate is being traced to the CBI charge sheet. We entirely agree that the ED has jurisdiction if it can trace “proceeds of crime” from coal allocation scam. It does not and cannot possess jurisdiction based on the phantoms that it sees from the charge sheet.
63.Unless and until proceeds of crime linked to the predicate offence are shown, ED by virtue of a combined reading of 2(1)(u), 2(1)(p), 3 read with Section 17, does not have the power to proceed further in fine lacks the jurisdiction to proceed further. In the light of the above decision, the impugned order is set aside. W.P.No.4297 of 2025 is allowed with costs. Cost memo to be filed within one week from today. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
sekarreporterpmla 
