Patna High Court – Orders
M/S. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., Through … vs The State Of Bihar Through Principal … on 20 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.299 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2021 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, PANKAJ SINGH @ PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-406 Year-2021 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas
======================================================
ADITYA MULTICOM PVT. LTD., A COMPANY THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SADASHIV PRASAD SINGH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME,
GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT,PATNA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2021 Thana- TILAUTHU District- Rohtas
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PVT. LTD.,A COMPANY THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SADASHIV PRASAD SINGH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECY., HOME, GOVT.
OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 290 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2021 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, PANKAJ SINGH @ PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH
... ... Petitioner/s
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
2/18
Versus
The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 292 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited, through its authorized Signatory,
Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat , Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 295 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-481 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, Pankaj
Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 305 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2021 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, PANKAJ KUMAR @ PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 311 of 2022
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
3/18
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- NARALI KALA KHURD District-
Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd.,through its Authorized Signatory, Pankaj
Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME, GOVT.
OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 312 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2021 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, Pankaj
Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 320 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2021 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Private Limited through its Authorized Signatory, Pankaj
Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME
GOVT. OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 417 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2020 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
4/18
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat , Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 428 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2021 Thana- DARIHAT District- Rohtas
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 436 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2021 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas
======================================================
Aditya Multicom Private Limited
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 484 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-954 Year-2020 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas
======================================================
ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 494 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2021 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SUWANT KUMAR
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
5/18
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 554 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2021 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
M/S. ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LTD., THROUGH AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, PANKAJ SINGH @ PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 611 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- NTPC KHAIRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar throuth Principal secretary, Home Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat , Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 619 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2022 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 634 of 2022
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
6/18
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- KACCHWA District- Rohtas
======================================================
ADITYA MULTICOM PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SUWANT KUMAR
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 299 of 2022 & its analogous cases)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Madhukar Anand, Advocate
Mr.Shubham Kr. Singh, Advocate
Ms.Riya Arora, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr.K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate (ASG)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC
Mr.Ankit Kumar Singh, AC to ASG
Mr.Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
For the State : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-VII
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
32 20-02-2025
Re: I.A. No. 02 of 2024
Heard Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. K.N. Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of
the Union of India duly assisted by Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha,
learned G.A.-VII for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the
Applicant Department (Directorate of Enforcement) for being
impleaded as a party respondent in the present criminal writ
petitions filed by the Petitioner, Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
7/18
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AMPL’), where a submission was
raised to give an opportunity for hearing after impleading
Enforcement Directorate (ED) as a party respondent.
3. The Applicant department is authorized to
investigate the offence of money laundering, which has been
made offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (as amended from time to time). The
object of PMLA is to prevent money laundering and to provide
for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in
money laundering and for matters connected therewith of
incidental thereto. The condition precedent for investigation
into offence of money laundering is registration of scheduled
offences.
4. The facts giving rise to the present application
are as follows:
(i) The Applicant Department is investigating
the Petitioner Company and its directors and others
for commission of the offence of money laundering
as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002 which is punishable
u/s 4 of PMLA, 2002.
(ii) As per the information available with the
applicant Department following FIRs have been
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
8/18registered against Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd., which
are the schedule offence, and are as under:
Sl. No. Police Station and FIR No. Schedule Offences
1. PS Barun, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
318/2021 dated 19.09.2021 the Indian Penal Code.
Contravention of sections 379, 411,
420 of IPC and Rule 11, 39 of Bihar
Minerals (Concession, Prevention of
Illegal mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2019.
2. PS Barun, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
264/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
3. PS Barun, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 120(B), 420
176/2021 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. PS Rishiyup Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
82/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
5. PS Daudnagar, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
481/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
6. PS Narari Kala Khurd, Aurangabad Section 411, 420 of
FIR No. 47/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
7. PS Navi Nagar Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
204/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
8. PS Navi Nagar Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
202/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
9. PS Darihat, Rohtas FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
125/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
10. PS Tilhautu, Rohtas FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
141/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
11. PS Nasriganj, Rohtas FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
126/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
12. PS Kachhawan, Rohtas FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
47/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
13. PS Barun, Aurangabad Chargesheet Sections 120B, 420 of
No. 78/18 dated 30.05.2018 filed the Indian Penal Code.
in FIR No. 09/18 dated 09.01.2018
14. PS Navi Nagar Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
38/2022 the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
9/18
15. PS Navi Nagar Aurangabad FIR No. Section 120B, 420 of
04/2018 the Indian Penal Code.
16. PS Darihat, Rohtas FIR No. 03/18 Section 120B, 420 of
the Indian Penal Code.
17. PS Dehri Nagar (Dalmia Nagar) Section 384, 120(B),
Rohtas FIR No. 535/18 411, 420, 467 of IPC
18. PS Dehri Nagar (Dalmia Nagar) Section 120B, 420 of
Rohtas FIR No. 29/18 the Indian Penal Code.
19. PS Obra, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 120B, 420 of
12/18 the Indian Penal Code.
20. PS Obra, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
206/2021 the Indian Penal Code.
21. PS Muffasil, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
09/18 the Indian Penal Code.
22. PS Amba, Aurangabad FIR No. Section 411, 420 of
03/2018 the Indian Penal Code.
23. PS N.T.P.C. Khaira,Aurangabad FIR Section 411, 420 of
No. 02/22 the Indian Penal Code.
24. PS Amjhor Rohtas FIR No. 63/2018 Section 420, 467, 471
of the Indian Penal
Code.
5. In support of submission of impleadment as a
party respondent, learned A.S.G. heavily relied upon the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929, which changed
the scenario and necessitate hearing of ‘ED’ in present case to
safeguard its interest being a “party of concern”.
6. It is submitted further by learned A.S.G. taking
note of aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court that
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
10/18
present petition is for quashing of the aforesaid FIRs which
are the schedule offences for proceeding against the
petitioners under PMLA Act, 2002.
7. It is pointed out by learned A.S.G. that if the case
of the petitioners are being quashed by this Court, in that
event the illegal property/money, cannot be said as “crime
property” within the meaning of section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA
Act, 2002. It is, therefore, prayed that Enforcement
Department has all its legal right at least “to be heard” before
this Court being a “concerned party” because, if the prayer of
the petitioners allowed, case of Enforcement Department
under PMLA Act, 2002 will fail. Continuing with the argument,
learned A.S.G. mainly relied upon para 281, 282, 283 &
284 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra), which
reads as under:
“281. The next question is: whether the offence under
Section 3 is a standalone offence? Indeed, it is
dependent on the wrongful and illegal gain of property
as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. Nevertheless, it is concerning the process or
activity connected with such property, which
constitutes offence of money-laundering. The property
must qualify the definition of “proceeds of crime”
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
11/18
under Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. As observed
earlier, all or whole of the crime property linked to
scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of
crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of
“proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will
necessarily be crime properties Indeed, in the event of
acquittal of the person concerned or being absolved
from allegation of criminal activity relating to
scheduled offence, and if it is established in the court
of law that the crime property in the concerned case
has been rightfully owned and possessed by him, such
a property by no stretch of imagination can be termed
as crime property and ex-consequenti proceeds of
crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) as it
stands today. On the other hand, in the trial in
connection with the scheduled offence, the Court
would be obliged to direct return of such property as
belonging to him. It would be then paradoxical to still
regard such property as proceeds of crime despite
such adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
It is well within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court
trying the scheduled offence to pronounce on that
matter.
282. Be it noted that the authority of the Authorised
Officer under the 2002 Act to prosecute any person for
offence of money-laundering gets triggered only if
there exists proceeds of crime within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act and further it is
involved in any process or activity. Not even in a case
of existence of undisclosed income and irrespective of
its volume, the definition of “proceeds of crime” under
Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
12/18
has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is possible
that in a given case after the discovery of huge volume
of undisclosed property, the authorised officer may be
advised to send information to the jurisdictional police
(under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act) for registration
of a scheduled offence contemporaneously, including
for further investigation in a pending case, if any. On
receipt of such information, the jurisdictional police
would be obliged to register the case by way of FIR if it
is a cognizable offence or as a non-cognizable offence
(NC case), as the case may be. If the offence so
reported is a scheduled offence, only in that
eventuality, the property recovered by the authorised
officer would partake the colour of proceeds of crime
under Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act, enabling him to
take further action under the Act in that regard.
283. Even though, the 2002 Act is a complete Code in
itself, it is only in respect of matters connected with
offence of money-laundering, and for that, existence
of proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section
2(1)(u) of the Act is quintessential. Absent existence
of proceeds of crime, as aforesaid, the authorities
under the 2002 Act cannot step in or initiate any
prosecution.
284. In other words, the Authority under the 2002
Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-
laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is
required to be recorded in writing that the person is in
possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is
further supported by tangible and credible evidence
indicative of involvement of the person concerned in
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
13/18
any process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and
until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such
process initiated would be a standalone process.”
8. It is submitted by learned A.S.G. that certainly
Enforcement Department not to investigate the schedule
offences and that to be done by the State police only, but as
the FIRs in issue as mentioned above, which are the schedule
offence, upon which the case of the Enforcement Department
under PMLA Act, 2002 is founded upon, therefore, the
Enforcement Department be given at least “right of hearing”
by taking note of principles of natural justice being a
“concerned party”.
9. It is submitted that object for seeking prayer for
hearing is to assist this Court by assisting the prosecution also
as to unveil the truth for fair justice and to curb the menace of
corruption/money laundering, which is badly disturbing the
socio-economical framework of our country.
10. Taking a contrary note, Mr. Madhav Khurana,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that Enforcement Department has “no locus” to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
14/18
appear in this case as schedule offence is being investigating
by State police, an independent investigating agency. It is
pointed out that Enforcement Department cannot act as a
supervising agency and also could not place the materials
collected during the course of investigation in PMLA case, as it
has no legal relevance to schedule offence. It is submitted by
Mr. Khurana that gap of investigation conducted by one
investigating agency cannot be supplement by investigating
agency of another case.
11. In support of his submission, Mr. Khurana relied
upon the legal report of Madras High Court as available
through V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State Rep. By the
Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch and Another
reported as 2022 SCC Online Mad 5162 and Bombay
Lawyers’ Association Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported as 2018 SCC Online Bom 4788.
12. Taking reference of aforesaid two cases, it is
submitted by Mr. Khurana that in both these cases prayer for
impleadment of Enforcement Department was not
entertained, as it was not considered as “victim”, but fairly
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
15/18
conceded that in both above mentioned cases legal ratio of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) as raised by
learned A.S.G. was not taken into consideration.
13. Arguing further in this context, it is submitted
by Mr. Khurana that in V. Senthil Balaji case (supra),
investigating agency of the predicate offence was directed to
provide relevant material documents to the Directorate of
Enforcement so as to enable it to invoke its jurisdiction to
commence its enquiry under PMLA Act, only after completion
of investigation, when investigating agency makes out a case
for cognizance of offences against the accused. It is pointed
out that with aforesaid observation the petition for
impleadment of Enforcement Department was dismissed.
14. Taking a contrary note qua aforesaid
submission, it is submitted by learned A.S.G. that aforesaid
judgment of the Madras High Court was reversed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court through Y. Balaji Vs. Karthik Desari and
Anr. reported through 2023 SCC Online SC 645.
15. In this context, it is further submitted by
learned A.S.G. that even through V. Senthil Balaji case
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
16/18
(supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court didn’t interfere order
of special court qua obtaining the certified copy of the FIR,
complaint, statement etc. by ED, but as special court refused
to provide certified copy of the earmarked documents, against
which the Enforcement Department (ED) moved before the
High Court of Madras under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which
was partly allowed by the High Court by order dated
30.03.2022 as passed in OP No. 5726/2022 against which an
appeal was brought by the accused namely, M. Kartikeyan
before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was refused to
entertain by Hon’ble Supreme Court through Y. Balaji case
(supra).
16. In this context, learned A.S.G. relied upon para
124 of the Y. Balaji case (supra), which reads as under:
“124. We do not know how an argument revolving
around Section 65B of the Evidence Act is raised.
Section 65B concerns the admissibility of electronic
records. Without certification, ED may not be able to
use those electronic records in evidence, in the
prosecution under PMLA. But it does not mean that
they cannot even have a look at the electronic records.”
17. Summing up the argument and taking note of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
17/18
aforesaid legal discussion, it is submitted by learned A.S.G.
that the interest of Enforcement Department was protected
up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was allowed to inspect the
materials of the schedule offence even during course of
investigation before special court. It is also pointed out by
learned A.S.G. that still the ratio of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary‘ case (supra), is only the guiding legal note
available to us as far case of PMLA Act is concerned, and,
therefore, the Enforcement Department must be given at
least an opportunity of hearing by impleading as a party
respondent. It is submitted that the opportunity of hearing
shall not any way prejudice to the petitioners, rather any such
denial shall prejudice to Enforcement Department, which in
broader sense appears essential to unveil the truth of the
crime (schedule offence) which is calyx of corruption and as
such against the national socio-economical interest, upon
which case of PMLA, 2002 against petitioners are founded
upon.
18. This Court find force in the submission of
learned A.S.G. as advanced above, accordingly, prayer of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.299 of 2022(32) dt.20-02-2025
18/18
Enforcement Department, as raised through I.A. No. 02 of
2024, is allowed.
19. Accordingly, Enforcement Department be
impleaded as one of the party respondent. Necessary steps be
taken during course of the day itself to implead Enforcement
Department as party respondent. The Enforcement
Department shall be heard in this matter after completion of
the argument of State and also permitted to submit its written
argument thereafter, if any.
20. With aforesaid observation, I.A. No. 02 of 2024
stands allowed.
21. Re-notify Cr.W.J.C. No. 299 of 2022 with its
analogous matters for further argument on 03.03.2025 at
3:30 P.M., position be retained.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U