SAUMYA CHAURASIA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 14-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 848 : 2023 INSC 1073
848
CASE DETAILS
SAUMYA CHAURASIA
v.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(Criminal Appeal No.3840 of 2023)
DECEMBER 14, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Appellant aggrieved by the order of the High 
Court dismissing the bail application fi led u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. has preferred 
this appeal. (i) Whether the appellant was prima facie found involved in 
the commission of the off ence of money laundering as defi ned in s.3 of 
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the appellant 
being a woman should be granted the benefi t of the fi rst proviso to s.45 of 
the PMLA; (iii) Whether an impudent attempt was sought to be made by 
alleging all the throughout in the synopsis, list of dates, questions of law 
and the grounds in the SLP that the High Court had grossly erred in not 
appreciating the charge-sheet and the cognizance order.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.3 and s.45 – An FIR 
was registered against one ‘S’ for the off ences u/ss.186, 204, 120-B, 353 
and 384 of IPC – Thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement registered 
an ECIR and appellant was arrested – The Special Court rejected bail 
application of the appellant – Then appellant fi led a bail application 
being before the High Court – When the judgment in the bail application 
was awaited in the High Court, the Police fi led the charge-sheet against 
the accused ‘S’ – The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took 
cognizance u/ss. 204 and 353 of the IPC on the charge-sheet submitted 
against ‘S’ – After which bail application of the appellant was rejected 
by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: The evidence relating to strong relations between the appellant 
and ‘S’, between the appellant and other persons ‘M’ and ‘A’; the evidences 
849
of movement of funds acquired out of extortion syndicate run by ‘S’ to ‘M’, 
proxy of the appellant; the utilization of proceeds of crime and acquisition 
of properties by the appellant in the name of her mother and cousin ‘A’ 
along with the details of the said properties etc. have been detailed in the 
said prosecution complaint, which leave no doubt in the mind of the Court 
that prima facie the appellant has been found involved in the commission 
of the off ence of money laundering as defi ned in s.3 of the said Act – The 
Courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while 
granting the benefi t of the fi rst proviso to s.45 PMLA to the category of 
persons (a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is 
sick or infi rm) mentioned therein – The extent of involvement of the persons 
falling in such category in the alleged off ences, the nature of evidence 
collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations 
– In the instant case, there is suffi  cient evidence collected by the respondent 
Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the 
appellant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Offi  ce of the Chief 
Minister, was actively involved in the off ence of Money Laundering as 
defi ned in s.3 of the PMLA – As against that there is nothing on record to 
satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said 
off ence and the special benefi t as contemplated in the proviso to s.45 should 
be granted to the appellant who is a lady. [Paras 21, 24, 25]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 – Charges mentioned in the chargesheet by the I.O. are 
not fi nal – It is the Court which decide, whether the Charge is required 
to be framed against the accused for the scheduled off ence or not:
Held: When the FIR is registered under particular off ences which 
include the off ences mentioned in the Schedule to the PMLA, it is the 
court of competent jurisdiction, which would decide whether the Charge 
is required to be framed against the accused for the scheduled off ence or 
not – The off ences mentioned in the chargesheet by the I.O. could never 
be said to be the fi nal conclusion as to whether the off ences scheduled in 
PMLA existed or not, more particularly when the same were mentioned in 
the FIR registered against the accused. [Para 28]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – r.3 of Or.XXI – An attempt made 
by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts by making 
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 
ENFORCEMENT
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
850
incorrect statements in the appeal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.