THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.403 and 404 of 2026 A.Chellakumar : Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Accused No.9 in both revisions The Deputy Director Director of Enforcement Ministry of Finance Department

2026:MHC:2029
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 03.06.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.403 and 404 of 2026
A.Chellakumar : Revision
Petitioner/
Petitioner/
Accused No.9 in both revisions

The Deputy Director
Director of Enforcement
Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Chennai. Vs.
ECIR No.4/14 : Respondent/
Respondent/
Complainant in both revisions
PRAYER IN CRL.R.C.(MD) No.403 of 2026: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNS 2023, to call for records in
C.C.No.5 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai and set aside the order made in Cr.M.P.No.6347 of 2022 dated 11.11.2025 and allow the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by appointing an independent qualified geological expert to inspect the spot and also accumulated mountainous heaped granite rocks kept undressed in Survey No.213/1A, 1C, 2A of Thaniyamangalam Group, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, to file true and proper valuation report.
PRAYER IN CRL.R.C.(MD) No.404 of 2026: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNS 2023, to call for records in C.C.No.5 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai and set aside the order made in Cr.M.P.No.6348 of 2022 dated 11.11.2025 and allow the petition discharging the revision petitioner from the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Nagarajan
(both revisions)
For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Laxman
ED Panel Counsel
(both revisions)
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)
These criminal revision petitions have been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
challenging the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in Criminal M.P. Nos. 6347 and 6348 of 2022 in C.C. No. 5 of 2022, dismissing the applications filed for discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case and the one filed for appointment of an expert to inspect the areas and to file a report.
2. The Enforcement Directorate has launched prosecution by filing a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the “Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002” (for brevity hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) for the offence of money laundering. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s. Om Sri Granites and M/s. Pallava Granites Industries Limited and their respective partners and key officials were involved in various illegal granite stone quarrying activities, forgery, illegal usage of explosives, encroachment, trespassing and causing loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.221.73 crores and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves during the period between 2001 to 2012. FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos. 158 of 2012, 206 of 2012 and 223 of 2013 for commission of various offences. Charge sheets have been laid in Crime No. 158 of 2012 on 15.09.2013, in Crime No. 206 of 2012 on 14.06.2016 and in Crime No. 223 of 2013 on 14.07.2016.
3. The Enforcement Directorate got into the scene and on investigation, it came to light that there was huge proceeds of crime involved approximately to the tune of Rs.215.36 crores. In view of the same, after collection of the entire materials and after recording the statements of the witnesses and accused persons, proceedings were initiated for provisionally attaching the properties and one such property that was attached belonged to the petitioner (A9). Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the extent of property that was attached was to the tune of Rs.56,63,874/-, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order of provisional attachment.
4. It is under these circumstances, the private complaint came to be filed by the Enforcement Directorate for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA and for
confiscation of the properties.
5. After cognizance was taken by the Special Court, summons were issued and after receipt of summons, the petitioner (A9) filed two petitions. Crl.M.P. No. 6348 of 2022 has been filed seeking for discharge from the criminal case. Crl.M.P. No. 6349 of 2022 was filed for appointment of an expert to inspect the areas and to file a report. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not have any role to play in the functioning of the partnership firms and therefore there is no question of any ill-gotten money insofar as the petitioner is concerned and since there are no materials to substantiate the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner sought for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
6. The petitioner had also sought for appointment of an expert on the ground that the department had omitted to properly inspect the waste granite stones which were kept in a heap at the site and therefore, to get a correct picture, he sought for appointment of an expert to inspect and to file a report.
7. The Enforcement Directorate filed a counter-affidavit and tookthe stand that the petitioner (A9) was holding 10.5% shares and he was a working partner and was actively involved in the running of the business. The money was earned out of this business and therefore was identified to be the proceeds of crime. The documents that were collected in the course of investigation clearly made out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Enforcement Directorate sought for dismissal of the discharge petition.
8. Insofar as appointment of an expert is concerned, the Enforcement Directorate took the stand that the officials of the Geology and Mining Department, Chennai, have clearly mentioned in the report about the methodology that was adopted for the quantification of the loss and there is absolutely no ground to appoint another expert to make an inspection and file a report. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate sought for dismissal of both the petitions.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has mechanically relied upon the final report and materials collected in the predicate offence without conducting an independent investigation. It is further submitted that even in the complaint, it is stated that only A3 acquired the right to carry on the quarrying operation for M/s. Om Sri Granites and he carried on with the quarrying operation from 1996 to 2010 and therefore, without there being any material against the petitioner (A9), he should not have been added as an accused in this case.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the petitioner (A9) had already resigned from the partnership firm as early as on 03.09.2010 from M/s. Om Sri Granites and from the document dated 30.08.2010, it is clear that the petitioner was no longer in the scene effective from 26.08.2010. Therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been added as an accused in the complaint.
11. The total proceeds of crime as was alleged by the Enforcement Directorate, was to the tune of Rs.215.36 crores and whereas what has been attributed against the petitioner was only a sum of Rs.56,63,874/- and this money was earned by the petitioner in his profession as a doctor and he was a former MLA who held responsible positions.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that aproper assessment of the granite stones was not made and it is lying in heaps and therefore there was a requirement for appointing an expert to conduct the inspection and to file a report.
13. Per contra, the learned Panel Counsel submitted that the present petition has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. It is further submitted that insofar as PMLA is concerned, the prosecution only focuses on the proceeds of crime and admittedly no discharge petition has been filed by the petitioner in the predicate offence, which is now pending before the Court and all those grounds that have to be raised in the predicate offence cannot be decided in a PMLA case. Learned Panel Counsel submitted that based on the investigation conducted, the tainted properties have been identified and it has been attached and further confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and prima facie materials are available to substantiate the offence of money laundering against the petitioner. The various factual grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be decided in a discharge petition and it is a matter for trial. The court below has considered all the points raised and has rightly dismissed the petitions and that the same does not require interference of this Court.
14. In the case in hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out so-called deficiencies in the materials that were collected by the Investigating Officer in the predicate offence and submitted that in spite of the final report filed in the predicate offence, the Enforcement Directorate ought not to have blindly taken the chargesheet and independent investigation should have been conducted.
15. The above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fundamentally flawed. The scope of investigation by the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA is only to find out as to whether there is a predicate offence covered by the Schedule to the Act and by commission of such offence, proceeds of crime have emerged. If these two conditions are satisfied, the Enforcement Directorate can proceed further with the private complaint under PMLA. Broadly, that is the scope of Section 3 of the Act. To constitute an offence of money laundering, a combined reading of Section (1)(u) and Section 3 of PMLA points out to the following ingredients, namely:
(a) There should have been a criminal activity which finds place in the Schedule to the Act;
(b) The criminal activity should have resulted in generation of proceeds of crime; and
(c) The proceeds of crime so generated should have been projected as untainted money.
It covers even a person who knowingly assists any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and the same will also come within the net of Section 3 of PMLA. This definition is wide enough to cover proceeds of crime projected, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in
Directorate of Enforcement v. Padmanabhan Kishore, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1490.
16. The petitioner cannot be allowed to raise grounds which may be available to seek discharge in the predicate offence while questioning the prosecution launched under PMLA. The Court must only see if the predicate offence in question is a scheduled offence and if there are materials to show that the property identified are proceeds of crime.
Therefore, the attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to go into the legality of the various offences projected as predicate offence cannot be gone into in these petitions.
17. The two main grounds that were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was not actively involved in the business and that the petitioner had already been relieved from the partnership firm in the year 2010 itself. Therefore, the property that has been identified by the Enforcement Directorate cannot by any stretch be termed as proceeds of crime.
18. The grounds that have been raised are factual in nature. While dealing with the discharge petition, the Court will not conduct a mini trial and what is necessary is to see as to whether materials have been collected by the prosecution to make out a prima facie case. At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion on the role played by the accused will be sufficient. The court is expected to sift the materials placed by the prosecution and while undertaking this exercise, the court cannot done the mantle of the trial judge at the time of final arguments after recording the entire evidence. All that is required is to see if the materials justify in making the accused undergo trial. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in (2019)
16 SCC 547. Reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in Tuhin Kumar Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, reported in 2025 (3) Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) 481.
19. In the case in hand, the prosecution was able to collect materials to the effect that the petitioner (A9) was holding 10.5% share in M/s. Om Sri Granites and he was a working partner and he had interest in the organization while it was making wrongful gain by illegal and unauthorized quarrying. Whether the petitioner was actually involved in the day-to-day affairs of the business and whether he had already been relieved from the partnership firm are matters of evidence which cannot be gone into while deciding the discharge petition.
20. Insofar as the properties that have been identified, the provisional order of attachment has already been made absolute by the Adjudicating Authority and that prima facie establishes that the respondent can proceed further with the complaint for the offence of money laundering under PMLA. Whether those properties were earned out of the own income of the petitioner, is again a matter for evidence. Just because the petitioner is a doctor by profession and he has held the position as an MLA, there is no legal presumption that the petitioner will never commit the offence of money laundering. Apart from that, the fact that the ill-gotten value of the property of the petitioner was valued at Rs. 56,63,874/- as against the total proceeds of crime quantified at Rs.215.36 crores by itself will not raise the presumption that the property belonging to the petitioner was not purchased out of the proceeds of crime. These are all defences which have to be raised in the course of trial by crossexamining witnesses and by placing necessary defence materials by way of evidence. This issue cannot be gone into in a discharge petition.
21. Insofar as the appointment of an expert is concerned, it is seen that the valuation report was prepared by a team of authorized officials of the Geology and Mining Department and the loss has been quantified. Whether that report is flawed is once again a matter of evidence and there is no question of the trial court appointing one more expert for collecting a fresh report. The prosecution has to stand or fall based on the report that has been relied upon. Apart from that, quantification of the loss sustained is more a matter to be gone into in the predicate offence and that will not be the main focus while deciding the complaint filed under PMLA.
22. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merits in these petitions and the trial court has rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner and the same does not warrant the interference of this Court.
23. In the result, these criminal revision cases stand dismissed. There shall be a direction to the trial court to proceed further with the trial and complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
[N.A.V., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]
10.06.2026
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
PKN
To
1.The Deputy Director
Director of Enforcement
Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Chennai.
2.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PKN
Judgment made in
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos.403 and 404 of 2026
10.06.2026