M/S. Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited Vs The Directorate Enforcement Rep.by its Assistant Director

M/S. Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited Rep.by N.Ranganatha Gupta (A2) aged 76 years, N.Prapanna Kumar (A3) aged 55 years N.Prasanna Kumar (A4) aged 53 years Door No.245, Old No.4-B, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10

¶10

N.Ranganatha Gupta

¶11

N.Prapanna Kumar

¶12

Parmartha Bhooshanam Sri Nathella Sampathu Chetty Charities Rep.by, N.Ranganatha Gupta (A2) aged 76 years, Door No.245, Old No.4-B, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10

¶13

Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Co.,

¶14

Rep.by, N.Ranganatha Gupta (A2) aged 76 years N.Prapanna Kumar (A3) aged 55 years N.Prasanna Kumar (A4) aged 58 years Door No.245, Old No.4-B, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10

¶15

Petitioner(s)

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶18

Vs

¶19

The Directorate Enforcement Rep.by its Assistant Director 2nd and 3rd Floors, C Block, Murugesa Naicker Officer Complex, No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 006.

¶20

Respondent(s)

¶21

PRAYER

¶22

To call for the records and set aside the order dated passed in Crl.M.P.No.36796/2024 in CC.No.20/2019 pending trial on the file of the Principal Court of Sessions at Chennai for an offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Manishankhar

¶24

Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Arun Kumar

¶25

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Sidharthan, Special Public Prosecutor for ED

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶28

Under assail is the order dated 20.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.36796 of 2024

¶29

in CC.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Court of Sessions, Chennai.

¶30

The present Criminal Revision Petition arose based on the petition

¶31

filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 309 of Cr.P.C

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶34

The facts in nutshell, as narrated, would show that on 27.03.2018 Mr.G.D.Chandrasekar, General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai preferred a complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, Bangalore. CBI registered a Regular Case in 08/E/2018-BS &

¶35

FC/BLR and commenced investigation. Consequently, Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR/CEZO/1/09/2018 under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA based on the scheduled offence registered by CBI in criminal case. Enforcement Directorate completed its investigation under PMLA and filed a complaint under Section 45 of the Act on 12.04.2019. Accordingly, Principal Court of Sessions took cognizance and assigned CC.No.20 of 2019 and

¶36

issued summons to accused.

¶37

Pertinently, during May 2022, CBI also completed its investigation and filed final report before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, Chennai in predicate offence case. The said case has been numbered as CC.No.530 of 2022. Court took cognizance of offence under Section 420 read with 120(B) IPC. Trial commenced in predicate offence case.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶40

Prosecution relied upon 1296 documents and 105 witnesses.

¶41

Principal Court of Sessions framed charges against accused, and

¶42

accused denied charges and summons issued to LW1/Mr.G.D.Chandrasekar,

¶43

General Manager, State Bank of India. In the context of above facts, Trial

¶44

Court considered the following judgments to reject the petition filed by

¶45

petitioner under Section 309 of Cr.P.C,

¶46

Limited vs. Enforcement Directorate , Crl.R.C.No.84/2021, dated 08.09.2002, of the Telengana High Court.

¶47

2. V.Vijay Sai Reddy vs. Enforcement

¶48

Directorate1.

¶49

3. Pavana Dibbur vs. Enforcement

¶50

Directorate2.

¶51

4. S.Martin -vs- Enforcement Directorate3,

¶52

dated 10.04.2024, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

¶53

India.”

¶54

1 2022 SCC Online TS 604

¶55

2 2023 SCC Online 1586

¶56

3 SLP (Crl) 4768/2024

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶59

Learned counsel for petitioner would mainly contend that charge

¶60

sheet in predicate offence was filed at later point of time. Therefore, trial in

¶61

PMLA cases ought to have been postponed till such time trial in predicate offence is completed. In other words, he would suggest that PMLA case needs

¶62

to be adjourned sine die till such time predicate offence case is disposed of. In

¶63

support, he relied on the judgments as stated supra.

¶64

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

¶65

Enforcement Directorate would strenuously oppose by stating that PMLA trial

¶66

does not depend on predicate offence trial. Both are distinct and different and

¶67

there is no reason to stall PMLA trial, as offence of money laundering is a standalone offence under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. Documents relied on

¶68

and prosecution witnesses, need not be one and the same in predicate offence trial and in PMLA case. That being the distinct nature of trial, stalling

¶69

PMLA trial would cause prejudice to the prosecution. Thus, petition filed under

¶70

Section 309 Cr.P.C has rightly been rejected by Trial Court. Predicate offence

¶71

is the trigger point to launch investigation under PMLA and not dependant on

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶74

predicate offence. An independent investigation is conducted under PMLA by

¶75

following the procedures, and evidences are collected independently, and that

¶76

exactly is the reason why the Courts have time and again reiterated that

¶77

PMLA trial is not dependant on predicate offence trial.

¶78

For more clarity, let us examine few judgments on the point. In the

¶79

case of S.Durga Prasad Vs. Assistant Director4 , this Court confirmed the

¶80

order of dismissal of Trial Court in a petition filed by an accused under Section

¶81

309 Cr.P.C. Judgment in the case of S.Durga Prasad cited supra was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP.No.56 of 2025 dated

¶82

10.01.2025.

¶83

In the case of Sidhant Gupta and Others Vs. Directorate of Enforcement5 in Cr.R.C.No.71, 115, 116 and 311 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024

¶84

and M.Venkatesan Vs. Directorate of Enforcement6 in Cr.O.P.No.7578 of

¶85

2023, dated 25.11.2024, Division Bench of this Court reiterated that offence

¶86

under PMLA is a standalone offence and it is not depending upon the trial of

¶87

4 MANU/TN/6583/2024

¶88

5 2024 MHC 3217

¶89

6 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8795

¶90

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶91

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶92

schedule offence. In this context, the case of Sidhant Gupta cited supra was

¶93

dismissed.

¶94

Beyond judicial pronouncement in numerous judgments including

¶95

the cases cited supra , it would be appropriate for this Court to consider

¶96

relevant provisions under PMLA.

¶97

Section 44 of PMLA states offence triable by Special Court.

¶98

Explanation to Section 44 has been inserted by Act 23 of 2019. Explanation

¶99

was inserted for removal of doubts and it is clarified that,

¶100

“(i)the jurisdiction of the Special Court while

¶101

dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial 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 trial; “

¶102

The above provision has been reiterated by Three Judges Bench of

¶103

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and

¶104

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶105

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶106

Others Vs Union of India and Others7 reiterated the principles and the

¶107

relevant paragraph reads as under:

¶108

“365. We must reconcile this provision with Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44. That provision has already been elaborated in the earlier part of this judgment and read down to mean that it is an enabling and discretionary provision. The same consideration must be kept in mind by the Special Court while considering the application filed in terms of this clause. For, this clause also recognises that the trial of scheduled offence and the trial concerning offence of money-laundering need to proceed independently, even though it may be tried by the same Special Court as both are distinct and independent offences. In that, the offence of moneylaundering is and can be only in relation to the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime and has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence as such.”

¶109

When parliament amended by inserting an explanation clause for

¶110

removal of doubts and clarified the scope of Section 44 of PMLA, the said

¶111

7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶113

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶114

provision is to be plainly read and to be understood as it is. Explanation 1 in

¶115

unambiguous term reiterates that investigation, enquiry or trial under the PMLA Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in scheduled

¶116

offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same Court shall not be construed as joint trial. When parliament has clarified that the trial in PMLA

¶117

case is independent and not dependent on the schedule offence case, there is no reason to entertain any application for the purpose of adjourning the case

¶118

on the ground that predicate offence case is pending. When it is made clear under the Act that PMLA is distinct and independent. Thus, there is no impediment for Special Court/Principal Special Judge in the present case to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case. When Courts have repeatedly emphasized that evidences and witnesses in predicate offence need not be

¶119

the same in the case of PMLA, the very object of conducting separate trial has been amplified both under the Act as well as through judicial pronouncements. Therefore, petitions are mostly filed before Trial Court in order protract and prolong the trial, which cannot be encouraged by Courts.

¶120

Due to high stake involved in money laundering cases, attempts are

¶121

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶122

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶123

being taken to quash the proceedings at each and every stage or to increase

¶124

the longevity of case. However, right of defence is to be protected in all respects by following the procedures as contemplated under PMLA. Learned

¶125

counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner/accused is cooperating for conduct of trial.

¶126

In view of the above discussions, the Criminal Revision Case is

¶127

dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are

¶128

closed.

¶129

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.) 30-10-2025

¶130

gd

¶131

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

¶132

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶133

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶134

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶135

To

¶136

1.The Directorate Enforcement Rep.by its Assistant Director 2nd and 3rd Floors, C Block, Murugesa Naicker Officer Complex, No.84, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 006.

¶137

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶138

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025

¶139

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND

¶140

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.

¶141

gd

¶142

CRL RC No. 515 of 2025