IN THE COURT OF LD.

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL,

TAMIL NADU

In Re:

Directorate of Enforcement, Ground Floor,

B-Wing, Pravartan Bhawan, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Road,

New Delhi-110011 through its Assistant Director,

Sh. Raja Ram Meena

…Applicant

Versus

Shri. Ankit Tiwari

Through Jail Superintendent

Central Jail-Madurai, Tamil Nadu

…Respondent

FIR No. 6/2023 dated 30/11/2023

U/s-7 (a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 at PS-DVAC,
Dindigul, Tamil Nadu

Most respectfully showth:

1. That a Petition vide Crl. M.P. No. 58 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of
the Applicant with a prayer to allow the two Enforcement Officers of the
Enforcement Directorate to interrogate and record the statements of the
Respondent who is presently languishing in the Central Jail Madurai in
 connection with the FIR No. 6/2023 registered for the alleged offences
u/s 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. That the allegations levelled against the Respondent are Scheduled

Offence under the Part-A, Paragraph -8 of the PMLA, 2002 and hence, an
Enforcement Case Information Report vide ECIR No. STF/F/18/2023 has
been registered by the Applicant on 06.12.2023 against the Respondent
who is an employee of the Applicant and is currently placed under
suspension vide Office Order dated _______________.

3. That in this regard it is humbly submitted that the investigation conducted

by the Law Enforcement Agency i.e., the DVAC in this case relate to the
commission of Scheduled Offence, the PMLA investigation
by Directorate of Enforcement strictly relate to commission of offence of
money laundering in the said case. Hence, both the investigations are
different and independent.

4. That the reliance has been placed in this regard on the case of Babulal
Verma Vs Enforcement Directorate (Bombay High Court Criminal
Application (APL) No. 201 of 2021 in which the Bombay High Court
held that,
“for initiation/registration of a crime under the PMLA, the only
necessity is registration of a Predicate/Scheduled Offence as prescribed
in various Paragraphs of the Schedule appended to the Act and nothing
more than it. In other words, for initiating or setting the criminal law in
motion under the PMLA, it is only that requirement of having a
predicate/Scheduled crime registered prior to it. Once an offence under
the PMLA is registered on the basis of a Scheduled Offence, then it
 stands on its own and it thereafter does not require support of
Predicate/Scheduled Offence. It further does not depend upon the
ultimate result of the Predicate/Scheduled Offence. Even if the
Predicate/Scheduled Offence is compromised, compounded, quashed or
the accused therein is/are acquitted, the investigation of ED under PMLA
does not get affected, wiped away or ceased to continue. It may continue
till the ED concludes investigation and either files complaint or closure
report before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The language of
Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, makes it absolutely clear that, the
investigation of an offence under Section 3, which is punishable under
Section 4, is not dependent upon the ultimate result of the
Predicate/Scheduled Offence. In other words, it is a totally independent
investigation as defined and contemplated under Section 2(na), of an
offence committed under Section 3 of the said Act.”

5. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs

The Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, that a “scheduled
offence” is a sine qua non for the offence of money laundering which
would generate the money that is being laundered. However, the Court
has interpreted the aforesaid to mean that the registration of the predicate
offence is necessary for the initiation of the investigation by the ED and
thereafter, the trials would be conducted separately.

6. That the Directorate of Enforcement is fully aware and cautious of the

fact that the DVAC being a Law Enforcement Agency has the right to
carry the investigation in this case independently and assures that,
investigation carried out in connection with the case registered with the
DVAC vide FIR No. 6/2023 at DVAC Dindigul is not and shall not in
future be interfered at any point of time by the Directorate of
 Enforcement but at the same time, the allegation levelled against the
Respondent is very serious in nature (covered as Scheduled Offence)
given the fact that he is an employee of the Applicant and was entrusted
with works related to investigation of cases of money laundering, there is
an urgent need to interrogate him and obtain his statement under PMLA,
2002.

7. That the Directorate of Enforcement in no way wishes to intervene or

hamper the investigation process of DVAC. It respects the independence
of the investigation process and expects the same from the DVAC as well.

PRAYER

In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, this Learned

Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Crl. M.P. No. 58 of 2024
AND/OR may pass any other order or direction as this Learned Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.