Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Jharkhand HC18 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./93/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision challenging an order for discharge in a money laundering case. The High Court held that a charge had already been framed and trial commenced, noting sufficient evidence against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition for discharge of the petitioner was dismissed.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Union of India through Directorate of… — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 93 of 2020

¶3

Rajendra Kumar ..... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the ED : None. ------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

11/ 18.08.2023 Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

¶6

petitioner.

¶7

Nobody has responded on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate in spite of repeated calls.

¶8

This petition has been filed for discharge for the petitioner, in connection with Complaint No. 02 of 2018, filed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, pending in the court of learned AJC-I-cum-Special Judge CBI-cum Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Ranchi.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and no offence has been made out against him, in spite of that charge has been framed against the petitioner, under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In view of that he submits that the petitioner may kindly be discharged.

¶10

In view of the above, it appears that the charge has already been framed by order dated 18.11.2019. The court has looked into the order dated 18.11.2019, by which, the learned court has framed the charge against the petitioner, from which, it transpires that what is the nature of case as well as the charge against the petitioner has been explained therein and thereafter the said order has been passed for framing of charge. The clarity of charge is required to be disclosed to the accused and it appears that the learned court has taken care of that and thereafter has passed the said order.

¶11

The status report is also available on record, which further suggests that the trial has started and one of the witness has already been examined in the matter.

¶12

Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, wherein, it has been disclosed that in the investigation, it has come that the petitioner Rajendra Kumar has

¶13

-2-

¶14

earned the proceeds of crime by laundering the same.

¶15

In view of the above, it appears that this petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. As such, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶16

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶17

Amitesh/-

Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikash Ghosh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Monika Kumari Ojha Alias Monika Devi Alias Monika Tiwari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Chhavi Ranjan Vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement Represented by Assistant Director

Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj Vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Sanjay Choudhary Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of External Affairs

A C Garg and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.