Dismisses discharge plea of Forest Officer as disproportionate assets justified Presumption of Money Laundering u/s 24 PMLA

Conclusion: Since the material on record disclosed grave suspicion regarding acquisition and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and attracted the presumption under section 24 of the PMLA, the Special Court was justified in refusing discharge. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition of a former Forest Range Officer was dismissed.

Held: Assessee was a former Forest Range Officer, challenged the order of the Special Court rejecting his application for discharge in proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Enforcement Directorate had registered an ECIR on the basis of a predicate offence lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging possession of disproportionate assets. Investigation revealed that assessee possessed assets exceeding his known sources of income by 608%, comprising movable assets worth about ₹2.71 crore, a lavish residential building and cash of ₹31.50 lakh. Assessee contended that no specific property derived from criminal activity had been identified and that his wife had independent income from rental and agricultural sources. He further argued that the filing of a closure report in a subsequent FIR and discharge of his wife in the predicate offence exonerated him from liability under PMLA. It was held that the Explanation inserted to section 2(1)(u) in 2019 clarifies that “proceeds of crime” include any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. On the material collected by the ED, assets worth more than ₹4 crore as against a lifetime legitimate salary of about ₹57 lakh constituted the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory presumption under section 24 of the PMLA. Once such foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the assets are untainted. The Court held that vague assertions regarding agricultural income, dairy farming and independent income of the wife, unsupported by cogent documentary evidence, could not rebut the statutory presumption at the stage of framing of charge. The discharge of the petitioner’s wife or filing of a closure report in another FIR did not automatically absolve the petitioner from prosecution under the PMLA. Relying on settled principles governing discharge, the Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists and is not expected to conduct a mini trial.