Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 and s.45 – An FIR was registered against one ‘S’ for the offences u/ss.186, 204, 120-B, 353 and 384 of IPC – Thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR and appellant was arrested – The Special Court rejected bail application of the appellant – Then appellant filed a bail application being before the High Court – When the judgment in the bail application was awaited in the High Court, the Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused ‘S’ – The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance u/ss. 204 and 353 of the IPC on the charge-sheet submitted against ‘S’ – After which bail application of the appellant was rejected by the High Court – Propriety:

Held: The evidence relating to strong relations between the appellant and ‘S’, between the appellant and other persons ‘M’ and ‘A’; the evidences of movement of funds acquired out of extortion syndicate run by ‘S’ to ‘M’, proxy of the appellant; the utilization of proceeds of crime and acquisition of properties by the appellant in the name of her mother and cousin ‘A’ along with the details of the said properties etc. have been detailed in the said prosecution complaint, which leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that prima facie the appellant has been found involved in the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined in s.3 of the said Act – The Courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while granting the benefit of the first proviso to s.45 PMLA to the category of persons (a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm) mentioned therein – The extent of involvement of the persons falling in such category in the alleged offences, the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations – In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in s.3 of the PMLA – As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to s.45 should be granted to the appellant who is a lady. [Paras 21, 24, 25]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Charges mentioned in the chargesheet by the I.O. are not final – It is the Court which decide, whether the Charge is required to be framed against the accused for the scheduled offence or not:

Held: When the FIR is registered under particular offences which include the offences mentioned in the Schedule to the PMLA, it is the court of competent jurisdiction, which would decide whether the Charge is required to be framed against the accused for the scheduled offence or not – The offences mentioned in the chargesheet by the I.O. could never be said to be the final conclusion as to whether the offences scheduled in PMLA existed or not, more particularly when the same were mentioned in the FIR registered against the accused. [Para 28]

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – r.3 of Or.XXI – An attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal – Certificate to be issued by the Advocate-on-Record and the affidavit to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner/appellant at the end of the SLP as per the provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules, do carry sanctity in the eyes of law:

Held: In the instant appeal, though the documents, particularly the Charge-sheet dated 08.06.2023 and the Cognizance order dated 16.06.2023 were neither part of pleadings nor were produced during the course of arguments before the High Court, the Certificate at the end of the SLP appears to have been given by the Advocate-on-Record appearing for the appellant without verifying the facts which were otherwise very apparent from the record – Even the affidavit sought to be filed pursuant to the query raised by the Court (as to when the said Charge-sheet dated 08.06.2023 was produced before the High Court) was also not filed answering the query, rather was filed making vague statements – There was a bold attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts for challenging the impugned order – The Certificate to be issued by the Advocate-on-Record and the affidavit to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner/appellant at the end of the SLP as per the provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules, do carry sanctity in the eyes of law – Since the Court has found that there was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh. [Paras 9, 10, 11 and 30]