COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI CASES, CHENNAI – 104. Present: Thiru. J. Omprakash, L.L.M., P.G.D.H.R.M., XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institution Scams, Allikulam, Chennai-03). XIII

1
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDITIONAL SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI CASES,
CHENNAI – 104.
Present: Thiru. J. Omprakash, L.L.M., P.G.D.H.R.M.,
XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
(CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institution Scams, Allikulam, Chennai-03).
XIII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai (FAC).
Tuesday, the 28th day of April 2026
Spl.C.C. No.1/2022 in ECIR/CEZO-I/01/2018
Directorate of Enforcement, represented by its Assistant Director,
Government of India,
2nd & 3rd Floor, “C” Block,
Murugesan Naicker Office Complex,
No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. ….. Complainant
.Vs.
1. Thiru. Ahmed A.R. Buhari,A/53 Years, (A1)
S/o. Late Thiru.B.S.A. Buhary
Promoter and Managing Director of
M/s. Coastal Energy Private Ltd.,
Residing at Old No.8, New No.14, Subba Rao Avenue, 3rd Street, Nungambakkam, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
(Quashed by the Hon’ble High Court order in
Crl.O.P.No.12147/2025 & Crl.O.P.No.8114/2025
dated 07.10.2025) ….. Accused No.1
2. M/s. Coastal Energy Pvt Ltd., (A2)
Registered Office at
Door No.11, Mahalingapuram Main Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
represented by Liquidator Sri Ramakrishnan Sadasivan (Resolution professional IBBI/IPA-001
/IP-P00108/ 2017-18/10215)
(Amended as per order in Memo in
S.R.No.8301/2023 dated 22.12.2023)
3. M/s. Coastal Energen Pvt. Ltd.,(A3)
Having registered office at
7th Floor, Buhari Towers, No.5, Moores Road, Chennai 600006. represented by Resolution Professional Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan
4. M/s. Coal & Oil Company DMCC, Dubai
AG Silver Tower, Unit-G, 34 Floor,
Jumeirah Lakes Towers,
P.O. Box 30850, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
6. M/s. Precious Energy Holdings Ltd., BVI
Suit 6, Mill Mall, Wickhams Cay 1, (Quashed by the Hon’ble High Court order in
Crl.O.P.No.5365/2026 & Crl.O.P.No.4054 & Crl.O.P.No.4055/2026 dated 12.03.2026)
7. M/s. Mutiara Energy Holdings Ltd., Mauritius
3rd Floor, Harbour Front Building,
President John Kennedy Road,
Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius
Authorised representative (Director) Salim Jhumka
(Quashed by the Hon’ble High Court order in Crl.O.P.No.3154/2026 dated 17.02.2026)

3
Mr. B. Satish Sundar, N. Balaji, V. Santharam and Hari Viswananth, Counsel for
Accused No.1, M/s. N.V. Prakash, V. Harishankar and V. Sai Sudharshan Counsel for
Accused No.2, M/s. T. Ravichandran, D. Sairamkumar, R. Kopperumdevi, D.
Elavarasi, K. Deva Dakshan, J. Samyuktha, N. Vignesh and K.M. Dharaniya Sri,
Counsel for Accused No.3, M/s. K.M. Kali Charan, Hemanathan.K, Sri Harini S.P.,
Gokulraj L, Elang Suriyan, Chandrika B and Kalidharun K.M. Counsel for Accused No. 7, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the entire material records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this court doth deliver the following:-
ORDER
The complainant has filed this case under Sections 44, 45(1) of PMLA 2002 for offence of Money Laundering committed under Section 3, 70 of PML Act. 2002, punishable under Section 4 of of PML Act. 2002.
2. Heard the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Enforcement
Directorate and the Learned counsel for the Accused 2 and 3.
3. Registration of predicate offense by the CBI:
On perusal of records it seems that a complaint was received by the CBI from the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that Sub-Standard coal has been supplied by the Thiru. Ahmed AR Buhari to the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.
(NTPC). Based on the said complaint the CBI has registered an FIR No.RC
221/2018/E-0003 dated.22.01.2018 at CBI/EO-III for the offense under Section
4
120(B) r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act against one
Mr. Ahmed A.R Buhari and others.
4. Registration of ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate:
As the FIR registered by the CBI against Mr. Ahmed A.R Buhari is under Section 120(B) r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act which are the schedule offense under PMLAct 2002, the Enforcement
Directorate( Hereinafter referred as ED) registered an ECIR bearing No.ECIR/CEZO- I/01/2018 dated 31.01.2018. After investigation, the ED had filed a complaint before this court against Thiru. Ahmed AR Buhari and 6 others under Section 3, 70 r/w Section 4 of PML Act. The said case was taken cognizance by this court and the case is at the stage of serving summons to A4 to A6.
5. Quashing of predicate offense:
On perusal of records it seems that the said Mr. Ahmed AR Buhari has filed
Criminal M.C.2639/2021 and Crl.M.A.4776/2023, Crl.M.A 15461/2025 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to quash the FIR No.RC 221/2018/E-0003 dated
22.01.2018 registered by the CBI. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court by its order dated 16.09.2025 has quashed the said FIR based on the closure of the connected FIR registered in RC 0292013A0020GNR against Mr. Ahmed AR Buhari. The above said fact categorically exhibit the fact that the predicate offense FIR was quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
5
6. Quashing of the present PMLA case against various accused by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras:
As the predicate offense FIR was quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court then the accused -1 Mr. Ahmed AR Buhari, the accused No.6 i.e. M/s. Precious Energy Holdings Ltd and the accused No.7 i.e. M/s. Mutiara Energy Holdings Ltd has moved a Crl.O.P.No.12147/2025, Crl.O.P.No.5365/2026, Crl.O.P.No.3154/2026 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to quash the present case registered against them. The Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court by its order dated 07.10.2025 (for A1), 12.03.2026 (for A6), 17.02.2026 (for A7) was pleased to quash the present proceedings against the accused A1, A6 and A7. For easy reference the order passed by the Hon’ble division bench of our Hon’ble High Court dated
12.03.2026 for A6 is extracted below :
2. Today, when the petition comes up for hearing, learned counsel forthe respondent would submit that the statement made before the court earlier is correct, as not only the predicate offence has been quashed in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court, but, on the said basis, the PMLA offence against the co-accused has also be quashed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.10.2025 in crl.O.P.No.12147 of 2025.
3. We have gone through the contents of the petition and the order bywhich the predicate offense has been quashed by the Court as also the order of this Court dated 07.10.2025.
4. In our consideration, in view of orders mentioned aforesaid, theproceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2022 on the file of XIII Additional
6
Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Chennai, pending against the petitioner, who is Accused No.6, also deserves to be quashed and it is , accordingly, quashed.
7. The Contention of the other accused :
The learned counsel for the other accused would contend that as the predicate offense FIR is quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and our Hon’ble High Court based on the judgment Vijay Madanlal Chowdry & Ors Vs. Union of India has quashed the PMLA proceedings against the other Accused . The learned counsel based on the said judgment of the Hon’ble court would contend that as Predicate offense FIR has quashed the PMLA proceedings cannot be continued and the learned counsel for the accused prayed this court to drop the further proceedings.
8. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor:
The Learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly submit that the predicate offense FIR was quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi Court and therefore prays to pass suitable orders in this case.
9. Analysis:
On perusal of the above said admitted facts it is evident that the predicate offense FIR was quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and moreover our Hon’ble High Court also in view of the quashing of the Predicated offense FIR has quashed the present PMLA case against A1, A6 and A7. Now the question would arise whether the case against the other accused under PML Act can be continued in
7
view of the quashing of the predicate offense. This question is No more Res-integra, as our Hon’ble Supreme court in Vijay Madanlal Chowdry & Ors Vs. Union of
India (2022 SCC on line SC 929) has categorically held as follows:
“467….(v)(d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or anyone claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.”
10. On perusal of the above said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the same categorically held that when the accused is discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or criminal case is quashed by Competent jurisdiction there can be no offence against money laundering. By applying the said principle in the
Present case as the predicate offense FIR is quashed by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court then the proceedings under PML Act cannot be continued and therefore the
8
present proceedings against the remaining accused is dropped and the same is dropped
11. Reviving of PMLA case:
Yet another question would arise whether the predicate offense is revived then whether the Enforcement Directorate have the right the revive the PMLA proceedings. This question is also no more Res-integra as our Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement Vs Emta Coal Ltd and Others by its order dated 06.07.2023 in SLP (Civil) Diary No.15235/2023 has held as follows:
“ Delay condoned.
Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that since there is a closure report in the predicate offence, therefore, no further proceedings under the PMLA Act could be continued as per the observations of the High Court in the impugned order(s).
He, however, submitted that in the event any further action is taken in respect of the predicate offence, then liberty may be reserved to the petitioner herein to take further steps under the said Act, including reviving these proceedings. The submission of learned ASG is placed on record.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in light of the aforesaid submission and liberty is accordingly reserved to the petitioner.
Pending applications shall stand disposed of”.
9
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case has categorically granted liberty to the Enforcement Directorate to bring back the present proceedings if the predicate offence proceedings is revived. By applying the said principle in the given case this court also grants liberty to the Enforcement Directorate to revive the present proceedings against A2, A3, A4 and A5. With regard to A1, A6 and A7 the
Hon’ble High Court has quashed the proceedings.
13. For the above said reason, this court pass the following orders:
1. In view of the quash of predicate offence FIR by the Hon’ble Delhi HighCourt, the present proceedings as against A2, A3, A4 and A5 is dropped by virtue of the binding principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chowdry & Ors Vs. Union of India.
2. If the predicate offence is revived then as per the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement Vs Emta Coal Ltd and Others, the Enforcement Directorate is granted liberty to bring around the present PMLA case against A2 to A5 by filing necessary application before this court.
3. Further not only for the above said reason or for any sound reason as wellthe Enforcement Directorate is also granted liberty to bring around the present PMLA case against A2 to A5 by filing necessary application before this court which will be decided on merits.
present proceedings.