Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedSaumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement
2023 INSC 1073
Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8847 of 2023)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 14 December 2023
- Bench
- Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 2(1)(p), 3, 4, 45; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120-B, 186, 204, 353, 384; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 437, 439; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order XXI Rule 3; Constitution of India — Article 136
Final Outcome
The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 lakh, to be deposited by the appellant with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks, for the attempt to misrepresent facts in the appeal (paras 30-31).
Key holdings
- The first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA is discretionary; it does not oblige a court to release a woman accused on bail (para 24).
- Before granting the proviso's benefit, courts should weigh the accused's extent of involvement and the nature of the evidence collected, while staying sensitive to vulnerable categories (para 24).
- Money-laundering action fails only if the accused in the scheduled offence is finally discharged or acquitted or the case is quashed; offences left out of a charge-sheet are not a final conclusion (para 28).
- A special leave petition is confined to the record before the court below; the Advocate-on-Record's certificate and the affidavit carry sanctity, and misstatements alone may justify dismissal (paras 9, 13, 15).
Brief Facts
The appellant, a Deputy Secretary in the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister's Office, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on 02.12.2022 under an ECIR founded on a Bengaluru FIR against another accused that included Sections 384 and 120-B IPC (paras 2-3). The Special Court and, on 23.06.2023, the Chhattisgarh High Court refused bail (para 3). While the High Court's judgment was reserved, the Karnataka Police charge-sheeted the other accused only under Sections 204 and 353 IPC, and the magistrate took cognizance of those offences (para 3). The special leave petition faulted the High Court for ignoring these documents, though they were never produced or argued there (paras 5-8, 10-11).
Court's Findings
Order XXI Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 confines a special leave petition to the pleadings before the court below (para 9). The Advocate-on-Record's certificate and the affidavit "do carry sanctity in the eyes of law" (para 13); litigants must make full and correct disclosure, and advocates must verify facts from the record (para 14). The "smartly drafted affidavit" was strongly deprecated and the appeal deserved dismissal on that ground alone, though the Court also decided the merits (para 15). Following Vijay Madanlal, the rigours of Section 45 must be reckoned without exception (para 18). A bail court need not weigh evidence meticulously but must express a prima facie opinion showing application of mind, particularly in serious economic offences (para 19). The prosecution complaint left no doubt that prima facie the appellant was involved in money laundering (para 21), and nothing showed she was not guilty or deserved the proviso's benefit (para 25). The scheduled offence survived: the charge-sheet reserved the Section 384 offence for the Chhattisgarh Police, the competent court decides on charges, and there was no discharge, acquittal or quashing (paras 27-29).
Legal Principle
The first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA lets courts release a woman, a person under sixteen, or a sick or infirm accused on bail, but only as a matter of judicial discretion. Courts should be sensitive to such persons' vulnerability, yet weigh the extent of their involvement and the evidence collected before extending the benefit (para 24).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 929 (SLP (Crl.) No. 4634 of 2014)
Cited by the appellant: PMLA proceedings depend on the existence of a scheduled offence. Applied by the Court: the rigours of Section 45 must be reckoned without exception; money-laundering action fails only when the accused in the scheduled offence is finally discharged, acquitted or the case quashed.
- Enforcement Directorate v. Preeti Chandra SLP (Crl.) No. 7409 of 2023, order dated 04.08.2023
The proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA confers a discretion on the court to grant bail where the accused is a woman; it does not mean such a person must necessarily be released.
