Last week, the Patna High Court issued a stay on a money laundering case involving a man accused by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of illicit liquor supply in Bihar, contravening the Bihar Excise Prohibition Act of 2016. The court instructed the ED to submit its response to the plea seeking the dismissal of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed by the ED.

“In the meantime, further proceedings in ECIR No. PTZO/37/2022 dated 13.12.2022 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that stay has been granted only with respect to the petitioner herein,” the bench held.

The petitioner filed an application seeking the quashing of Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings and Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) initiated against him in 2022 which relates to the investigation of alleged proceeds of crime stemming from the purported supply of liquor into Bihar State in violation of the 2016 Act.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel questioned whether the ECIR could be justified by the ED for an offense not listed as scheduled, or if, through Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), any offense could be categorized as a scheduled offense by association with the mentioned section.

The counsel reasoned that neither would be true, since any conspiracy would pertain only to offenses explicitly listed in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and not to offenses outside its scope.

He relied on the precedent set by the case of Pavanadibbur Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1029, where it was definitively established that an offense punishable under Section 120B of the IPC would be considered a scheduled offense only if the alleged conspiracy pertains to an offense explicitly included in the schedule.

Consequently, the Counsel argued that any offense under the Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016, does not fall within the ED's jurisdiction since it is not listed as a scheduled offense. They asserted that the ED cannot mechanically pursue action against the petitioner since the allegations in the FIR, upon which the ECIR is based, do not even remotely imply that the petitioner committed a scheduled offense under the PMLA Act.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and ED sought six weeks for filing a counter affidavit.

Accordingly, Justice Satyavrat Verma directed, “The counter affidavit shall given parawise reply of the pleadings made in the quashing application and shall also reply the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

The case has now been listed on 29.04.2024.

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Sahani, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (ASG)

For the UOI : Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate, ED Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate

Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4441 of 2024

Case Title: Sunil Bhardwaj @ Sunil Kumar vs. Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement

Click Here To Read / Download Order