Bhupesh Kumar Baghel Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, disposed of the criminal writ petition filed by Bhupesh Kumar Baghel Vs Union of India & Ors. on 11 August 2025, concerning the scope of further investigation and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The matter was heard by the Supreme Court after submissions from senior counsel representing the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The principal legal issue concerned the interpretation of Section 44(1) of the PMLA and the procedural limits applicable when the Enforcement Directorate seeks to place additional evidence before a Special Court or proceed against persons not originally named in a money-laundering complaint.
The Supreme Court referred to the authoritative three-Judge Bench decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported as (2023) 12 SCC 1. Specifically, paragraph 263 of that judgment interprets the Explanation to Section 44(1). It recognises that the trial of a money-laundering offence and the trial of its connected scheduled offence remain legally distinct proceedings, even where both are conducted before the same Special Court. It further explains that the statutory provision permitting subsequent complaints facilitates the introduction of material gathered during further investigation against persons involved in the same money-laundering offence, whether or not they were named in the original complaint.
Summarising the petitioner’s legal submissions, the Supreme Court identified three procedural propositions. First, the Enforcement Directorate may bring further evidence on record during the trial. Second, where further evidence is sought to be introduced during an ongoing trial, the authority must obtain the prior permission of the competent Court in accordance with the principles described in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. Third, the Directorate may file a fresh complaint against a person not named in the original prosecution complaint, or the Court may proceed against such a person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court did not undertake an independent adjudication of the factual allegations against the petitioner or declare that a particular investigative action was unlawful. Instead, it clarified that if the Enforcement Directorate or any competent authority acts contrary to the legal principles recognised in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the affected person may approach the jurisdictional High Court to challenge that action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the High Court. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The order therefore preserves judicial scrutiny of investigative action while recognising the statutory framework permitting further evidence and additional complaints in money-laundering proceedings.
Cases Discussed
1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. — (2023) 12 SCC 1; Supreme Court; 27/07/2022. The Supreme Court expressly relied on paragraph 263 concerning the Explanation to Section 44(1) of the PMLA, separate trials for money laundering and scheduled offences, further evidence during trial, and fresh prosecution complaints against additional accused persons.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF SUPREME COURT
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents.
2. It is a matter of record that, with respect to the interpretation of Section 44(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 1 in paragraph 263 has held as follows:
“263. Clause (i) of the Explanation enunciates that the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence being tried under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trials. This, in fact, is reiteration of the earlier part of the same section, which envisages that even though both the trials may proceed before the same Special Court, it must be tried separately as per the provisions of the 1973 Code. Insofar as clause (ii) of the Explanation, at the first glance, it does give an impression that the same is unconnected with the earlier part of the section. However, on closer scrutiny of this provision, it is noted that the same is only an enabling provision permitting to take on record material regarding further investigation against any accused person involved in respect of offence of money laundering for which complaint has already been filed, whether he has been named in the complaint or not. Such a provision, in fact, is a wholesome provision to ensure that no person involved in the commission of offence of money laundering must go unpunished. It is always open to the authority authorised to seek permission of the court during the trial of the complaint in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by the court to bring on record further evidence which request can be dealt with by the Special Court in accordance with law keeping in mind the provisions of the 1973 Code as well. It is also open to the authority authorised to file a fresh complaint against the person who has not been named as accused in the complaint already filed in respect of same offence of money laundering, including to request the court to proceed against such other person appearing to be guilty of offence under Section 319 of the 1973 Code, which otherwise would apply to such a trial.”
3. To sum up the contention of the petitioner, this Court has held that: (i) The authorities of the Enforcement Directorate can bring on record further evidence during the trial; (ii) the further evidence can be brought on record with the prior permission of the Court; and (iii) the Enforcement Directorate can either file a fresh complaint or the Court can proceed against such other person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now substituted by a new provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
4. There is no gainsaying if the Enforcement Directorate or the authority has acted contrary to the principles of law, which are explained by this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the aggrieved person(s), including the petitioner, if so advised, shall always be at liberty to approach the High Court questioning such action of the authorities.
5. With the liberty aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with pending application(s), if any.
