The Jharkhand HC has held that there need not be an “arithmetical correspondence” between the amount quantified in proceedings relating to the scheduled offence and the value of property alleged to constitute proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad was hearing a petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the order of the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, which had declined to alter or modify the charges framed against him.

The petitioner was facing trial under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. He sought alteration of the charge under Section 216 CrPC, contending that the amount alleged to be involved in the PMLA proceedings was substantially higher than the amounts reflected in the proceedings concerning the scheduled offences.

The record showed that the Vigilance had initially submitted a charge-sheet in 2010 concerning alleged offences involving approximately ₹1.40 crore. The CBI subsequently took over the investigation, with its charge-sheets referring to different amounts, including alleged illegal gratification of ₹13 crore and disproportionate assets of approximately ₹8.42 crore.

In the PMLA proceedings, however, the proceeds of crime were stated to be approximately ₹3,549.72 crore and US$24,29,990. The amount was subsequently altered to approximately ₹3,554.65 crore, while the dollar amount remained unchanged. The petitioner therefore contended that the amount forming the basis of the PMLA charge had no corresponding foundation in the predicate offence and sought alteration of the charge.

The Special Judge declined to alter the charge at that stage, observing that any alteration or modification could be considered at the appropriate stage of trial.

The High Court examined the scheme of Section 216 CrPC, which empowers the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment. It noted that the provision does not confer a right upon an accused to demand alteration of a charge. Pasted markdown

The Court also considered the definition of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA and the offence of money-laundering under Section 3. Rejecting the argument that the PMLA amount must numerically correspond to the amount mentioned in the scheduled-offence charge-sheet, the Court, referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, noted:

“There is nothing in the said paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment or anywhere in the said judgment, which requires an arithmetical correspondence between the value quantified in a charge-sheet relating to the scheduled offence and the value of the property alleged, in a complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA, to be involved in money-laundering.”

The Court further held that determining the correctness of the amount alleged as proceeds of crime would require examination of the properties, transactions and evidence connecting them with the scheduled offences. Such questions were matters for trial and could not be finally determined at the stage of the application for alteration of charge. Pasted markdown

The Court also noted that the scheduled-offence proceedings were still pending and that the petitioner had neither been discharged nor acquitted in those proceedings. It found no basis to hold that the PMLA charge must be confined to an amount numerically matching that stated in the predicate-offence charge-sheet. Pasted markdown

The Court accordingly found no manifest illegality, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. It dismissed the petition, leaving the evidentiary questions concerning the alleged proceeds of crime to be considered during trial. Pasted markdown

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, Advocate

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate