Supreme Court of India

SAUMYA CHAURASIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2023 INSC 1073
Decided: 14 December 2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE

Holding

The appellant was found prima facie involved in money‑laundering and the discretionary bail provision for women under Section 45 (1) of the PMLA was not mandatorily applicable; moreover, the appellant’s counsel misrepresented facts, justifying dismissal of the appeal.

Summary

The appellant, Saumya Chaurasia, a Deputy Secretary in the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister’s Office, was arrested in connection with an extortion‑linked money‑laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. She sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., but the High Court rejected her application, prompting a Special Leave Petition before this Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was prima facie involved in money‑laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, whether the discretionary benefit for women under the first proviso of Section 45 PMLA could be invoked, and whether the appellant’s counsel had misrepresented facts by filing affidavits and certificates contrary to Supreme Court Rules. The Court held that the prosecution evidence established a strong nexus between the appellant and the extortion syndicate, satisfying the prima facie test for money‑laundering, and that the discretion under Section 45 (1) was not mandatorily exercisable even for a woman. It also found that the appellant’s counsel deliberately misrepresented facts, violating Rule 3 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with a cost order of Rs 1 lakh. The decision reaffirmed that scheduled offences must be determined by a competent court and that misrepresentation in SLPs is intolerable.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant was prima facie involved in the commission of money‑laundering as defined in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Whether the appellant, being a woman, is entitled to the discretionary benefit of bail under the first proviso of Section 45 of the PMLA.
Whether the appellant’s counsel misrepresented facts by filing a certificate and affidavit that omitted material documents, in violation of Supreme Court Rules, Order XXI, Rule 3.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(8), s. 437, s. 439
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 186, s. 204, s. 353, s. 384
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s. 3, s. 4, s. 45
Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Rule 3 of Order XXI

Subjects

money launderingbailPrevention of Money Laundering ActSection 45 provisowomenmisrepresentationSupreme Court Rulescharge‑sheetcognizancescheduled offence

Judgment

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 848 : 2023 INSC 1073

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 ﬁled 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 oﬀence of money laundering as deﬁned in s.3 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the appellant
being a woman should be granted the beneﬁt of the ﬁrst 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 oﬀences 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 ﬁled a bail application
being before the High Court – When the judgment in the bail application
was awaited in the High Court, the Police ﬁled 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
848
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 849
ENFORCEMENT

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 oﬀence of money laundering as deﬁned in s.3 of the said Act – The
Courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while
granting the beneﬁt of the ﬁrst 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 inﬁrm) mentioned therein – The extent of involvement of the persons
falling in such category in the alleged oﬀences, the nature of evidence
collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations
– In the instant case, there is suﬃcient 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 Oﬃce of the Chief
Minister, was actively involved in the oﬀence of Money Laundering as
deﬁned 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
oﬀence and the special beneﬁt 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 ﬁnal – It is the Court which decide, whether the Charge is required
to be framed against the accused for the scheduled oﬀence or not:
Held: When the FIR is registered under particular oﬀences which
include the oﬀences 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 oﬀence or
not – The oﬀences mentioned in the chargesheet by the I.O. could never
be said to be the ﬁnal conclusion as to whether the oﬀences 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
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

incorrect statements in the appeal – Certiﬁcate to be issued by the
Advocate-on-Record and the aﬃdavit to be ﬁled by or on behalf of the
petitioner/appellant at the end of the SLP as per the provisions contained
in the Supreme Court Rules, do carry sanctity in the eyes of law:
Held: In the instant appeal, though the documents, particularly the
Charge-sheet dated 08.06.2023 and the Cognizance order dated 16.06.2023
were neither part of pleadings nor were produced during the course of
arguments before the High Court, the Certiﬁcate at the end of the SLP
appears to have been given by the Advocate-on-Record appearing for the
appellant without verifying the facts which were otherwise very apparent
from the record – Even the aﬃdavit sought to be ﬁled pursuant to the query
raised by the Court (as to when the said Charge-sheet dated 08.06.2023 was
produced before the High Court) was also not ﬁled answering the query,
rather was ﬁled making vague statements – There was a bold attempt made
by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts for challenging the
impugned order – The Certiﬁcate to be issued by the Advocate-on-Record
and the aﬃdavit to be ﬁled by or on behalf of the petitioner/appellant at the
end of the SLP as per the provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules,
do carry sanctity in the eyes of law – Since the Court has found that there
was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the
facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned
order passed by the High Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh.[Paras 9, 10, 11 and 30]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC
Online SC 929 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3840 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2023 of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCRC No. 1258 of 2023.
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 851
ENFORCEMENT

Appearances:
Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Malak
Manish Bhatt, Harshwardhan Parganhia, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Aditya Chopra,
Mandeep Singh, Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Sidak Anand, Advs. for the Appellant.
S.V. Raju, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Zoheb Hussain, Annam
Venkatesh, Ms. Sairica Raju, Chandra Prakash, Arkaj Kumar, Advs. for
the Respondent.

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1258/2023 is
assailed by way of present Appeal, whereby the High Court has dismissed
the bail application ﬁled by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The
appellant was arrested on 02.12.2022 in connection with the Crime No.
ECIR/RPZ0/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022, registered at the Police Station/
Investigating Agency - Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Oﬃce Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 384,
120-B of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (for short “PML Act”).
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief as emerging from the
record, may be stated as under:
Dates Particulars
30.06.2022 A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the
Income Tax Act was carried out against an individual
named Suryakant Tiwari, who was at the time of
search and seizure found at Room No. 664, Hotel
Sheraton Grand, Whiteﬁeld, Bengaluru.
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

12.07.2022 Shri Pakkiresh Badami, Deputy Director of Income
Tax Investigation, lodged an FIR being FIR No.
129/2022 at Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru city,
against the said Suryakant Tiwari for the oﬀences
under Sections 186, 204, 120-B and 353 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
Later Section 384 of IPC was added on 03.09.2022.
29.09.2022 Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred
to as the “ED”) registered an ECIR bearing No.
RPZO/09/2022 on the basis of the said FIR registered
against the said accused – Suryakant Tiwari.
02.12.2022 The appellant- Saumya Chaurasia, who happened to
be the Deputy Secretary, in the oﬃce of the Chief
Minister, Chhattisgarh, came to be arrested under
the said ECIR. She was remanded to ED custody
till 06.12.2022, which came to be extended till
10.12.2022 by the Special Court.
09.12.2022 ED filed the Prosecution Complaint against the
accused- Suryakant Tiwari for the oﬀence under
Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
14.12.2022 The ED sought judicial custody of the appellant for
fourteen days, however, the Special Court granted
the judicial custody initially for ﬁve days, which
subsequently came to be extended from time to time
at the instance of the ED till 27.01.2023.
13.01.2023 The appellant ﬁled an application under Section 437
of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 & 65 of the PMLA in
the court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge (Special
Judge, PMLA) at Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Special Court’).
20.01.2023 The Special Court rejected the bail application of
the appellant.
30.01.2023 ED ﬁled a supplementary complaint naming the
appellant amongst others as the accused.
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 853
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

10.02.2023 The appellant ﬁled a Bail Application being No.
1258 of 2023 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh
at Bilaspur.
17.04.2023 The arguments were advanced by the learned
counsels for the parties, and the bail application was
reserved for orders by the High Court.
08.06.2023 When the judgment in the bail application was
awaited in the High Court, the Karnataka Police ﬁled
the charge-sheet against the accused – Suryakant
Tiwari in respect of the FIR No. 129/2022 for
the oﬀence under Sections 204 and 353 of IPC,
clarifying therein that “accused found to have
committed oﬀence under Section 384 of IPC with
his henchmen at Chhattisgarh State for which the
report would be prayed to Chhattisgarh Police
through proper channel……..”.
16.06.2023 The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru, took cognizance under Sections 204 and
353 of the IPC on the charge-sheet submitted against
the Suryakant Tiwari by the Karnataka Police.

23.06.2023 The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur rejected
the bail application of the appellant.
27.06.2023 The complainant- Mr. Badami of the FIR No.
129/2022 ﬁled a protest petition under Section
173(8) of the Cr.P.C. against the ﬁnal report
submitted by the Karnataka State Police through
Kadugodi Police Station and prayed for the
completion of the investigation of oﬀences under
Sections 120-B and 384 of the IPC seeking
permission to further investigate the matter and ﬁle
supplementary charge-sheet under the scheduled
oﬀences of PMLA.
4. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
23.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, has preferred this
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

5. Curiously, the appellant at various places in the synopsis of the list
of dates and events and in the memorandum of SLP has raised a grievance that
the High Court in the impugned order had failed to appreciate that there was no
scheduled oﬀence which was made out against the appellant, as the scheduled
oﬀences under Section 384 and 120-B of IPC were already dropped from
the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 ﬁled by the Investigating Oﬃcer against
the accused- Suryakant Tiwari, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru, also had taken cognizance of the oﬀences under Sections 204 and
353, IPC only vide order dated 16.06.2023. The appellant also had framed
the questions of law ‘C’ & ‘E’ and had raised the grounds ‘C’ & ‘D’ in that
regard in the SLP for assailing the impugned order, emphasizing that the High
Court had committed gross error in not considering the said Chargesheet dated
08.06.2023 and the Cognizance order dated 16.06.2023.
6. As it was apparent from the record that the judgment was reserved
on 17.04.2023 and delivered on 23.06.2023 by the High Court and that
the chargesheet in the predicate oﬀence was submitted on 08.06.2023 and
the Cognizance order thereon was passed on 16.06.2023, that is during the
period when the judgment was awaited after the arguments were concluded,
this Court on 09.10.2023, when the SLP (instant appeal) was being heard,
put a query to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as to
whether the said Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 and the Cognizance order
dated 16.06.2023 were produced and brought to the notice of the High Court.
The Court at that time also brought to the notice of the learned counsel
about the Certiﬁcate given by the Advocate-on-Record appearing for the
appellant and the aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the appellant at the end of the
SLP. Since, the learned senior counsel stated that the said charge-sheet and
the cognizance order were produced and were also brought to the notice of
the High Court, this Court had directed that the appellant or her concerned
advocate on her behalf may ﬁle an aﬃdavit in that regard, by passing the
order on 09.10.2023.
7. The appellant in compliance with the said order dated 09.10.2023
ﬁled an aﬃdavit stating inter-alia as under: -
“4. Since, as stated above these facts had a bearing on the Petitioner’s
bail application, the same were sought to be placed before the Hon’ble
High Court by way of a covering memo dated 19.06.2023.
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 855
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

5. The said covering memorandum annexed the following
documents:-
A. Medical report of Myra Modi.
B. Order sheets of the subsequent development which took place
in the matter.
A certiﬁed copy of the covering memo ﬁled before the Hon’ble
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCrC No. 1258/2023
is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A.
6. After serving the said covering memo and the attached documents
upon the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of ED, the same was
ﬁled with the registry of the Hon’ble High Court on 19.06.2023
and was thereafter, mentioned before the Ld. Single Judge of the
Hon’ble High Court by the Petitioner’s counsel, and these facts
were orally brought to the knowledge of the Ld. Single Judge of
Hon’ble High Court.…
7. While the matter was mentioned and Hon’ble High Court was
orally informed about the contents of the documents that were
ﬁled including the cognizance order dated 16.06.2023, detailed
arguments were neither called upon by the Hon’ble High Court,
nor the same were advanced.……”
8. Since, the appellant had conveniently remained silent in the
above aﬃdavit as to whether the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 was in
fact produced before the High Court or not, the Court again raised the
query as to when the said Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 was produced
before the High Court. In reply thereto, the learned senior counsel
submitted that the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 was in itself not
produced as the same was not available with the appellant. The Court,
therefore, asked the learned senior counsel about the sanctity attached
to the Certiﬁcate given by the Advocate-on-Record at the end of the SLP
which stated that “the SLP is conﬁned only to the pleadings before the
Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the other documents relied
upon in those proceedings. No additional facts/documents or grounds
have been taken therein or relied upon in the SLP.” The learned Senior
Advocate replied that “we regret for that.”
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

9. The reason for elaborately stating the above facts is that Order
XXI of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 framed under Article 145 of the
Constitution of India, deals with the provisions regarding Special Leave
Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution. Rule 3 of the said Order XXI
mandates inter alia that the SLPs shall be conﬁned only to the pleadings
before the court/tribunal whose order is challenged and that the petitioner
may produce copies of such petition/documents which are part of the record
in the case before the court/tribunal below, if and to the extent necessary to
answer, the question of law arising for consideration in the petition, or to
make out the grounds urged in the SLP, as Annexures to the petition.
10. In the instant Appeal, as demonstrated hereinabove, though
the documents, particularly the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023 and the
Cognizance order dated 16.06.2023 were neither part of pleadings nor
were produced during the course of arguments before the High Court, the
Certiﬁcate at the end of the SLP appears to have been given by the Advocate-
on-Record appearing for the Appellant without verifying the facts which
were otherwise very apparent from the record. The aﬃdavit by the husband
and pairokar of the petitioner Shri Saurabh also appears to have been ﬁled
at the bottom of the SLP without verifying the said facts. Even the aﬃdavit
sought to be ﬁled pursuant to the query raised by the court was also not ﬁled
answering the query, rather was ﬁled making vague statements.
11. Though the said Chargesheet and the Cognizance order were neither
pleaded nor argued before the High Court, an impudent attempt was sought
to be made by alleging all 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 said documents.
12. Having regard to the above state of aﬀairs, the Court has a reason to
believe that there was a bold attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant
to misrepresent the facts for challenging the impugned order.
13. The Certiﬁcate to be issued by the Advocate-on-Record and the
Aﬃdavit to be ﬁled by or on behalf of the petitioner/appellant at the end
of the SLP as per the provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules, do
carry sanctity in the eyes of law. It is unbelievable that the battery of lawyers
appearing for the appellant did not notice the apparent fact that when the
chargesheet and cognizance order were not in existence before the High
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 857
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

Court when the arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved,
non-consideration of the same by the High Court could not be made the
basis for challenging the said order in the SLP before this Court.
14. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking
justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts
and that every advocate being an oﬃcer of the court, though appearing for
a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its
function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a
very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from
the advocates particularly designated Senior advocates appearing in the
highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed
and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District
Courts. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and
argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty
to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal
acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.
15. In the instant case, though the Court had speciﬁcally drawn the
attention of all the learned counsels appearing for the appellant with regard
to the ex-facie inconsistencies appearing in the grounds mentioned in the
SLP and in the certiﬁcate and aﬃdavit ﬁled at the bottom of the SLP, as
per the order dated 09.10.2023, again an attempt was sought to be made by
ﬁling a smartly drafted aﬃdavit, avoiding to answer the query raised by the
court. Such an attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant is strongly
deprecated. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on that ground
alone. However, since the learned counsels for the parties have made their
submissions at length, the Court deems it proper to deal with the appeal
independently and on merits also.
16. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, for the appellant
made following submissions: -
(i) The appellant was not named in the FIR dated 12.07.2022 nor
in the ECIR dated 29.09.2022 registered against the accused-
Suryakant Tiwari, yet the appellant was arrested on 02.12.2022,
though she had co-operated during the course of interrogation by
the ED.
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

(ii) The charge-sheet in the FIR No. 129/2022 ﬁled against the
accused-Suryakant Tiwari having been ﬁled by the Karnataka
Police for the oﬀence under Sections 204 and 353 only, the
proceedings in relation to Sections 384 and 120-B, IPC could
not be said to have survived as regards the said charge-sheet.
(iii) The proceedings under the PMLA are contingent on the existence
of the scheduled oﬀence, and no proceedings under the PMLA
can be continued against the person in absence or in isolation
of scheduled oﬀence, in view of the decision of this Court in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1
(SLP(Crl.) No. 4634 of 2014).
(iv) Pressing into service the proviso to Section 45, the submission
was made that the appellant being a lady, she should be released
on bail more particularly when she is in custody for more than
one year and when the continued custody is not required.
(v) There was no substantive evidence except the bare allegations
made in the prosecution complaint lodged against her, and
therefore the questions rebutting the presumption contained in
Section 45 did not arise.
(vi) There was no prima facie connection or relationship between
the appellant and the co-accused- Suryakant Tiwari, Manish
Upadhyay or Nikhil Chandrakar in the prosecution complaint
ﬁled by the ED, nor any evidence legally maintainable has been
produced by the ED.
17. The learned ASG Mr. S.V. Raju appearing for the respondent-ED
made following submissions:
(i) The prosecution during the course of investigation has collected
substantive evidence showing strong nexus between the appellant
and the other accused, and the documents produced in the Court
indicate prima facie material establishing money laundering at
the hands of the appellant.

1 2022 SCC Online SC 929
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 859
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

(ii) The prosecution has collected the documents showing
incriminating evidence which disclose numerous cash
transactions and other illegal transactions including purchase
of immoveable properties in the name of the mother and
other relatives of the appellant, showing involvement of the
accused-Suryakant Tiwari and others, as to how Mr. Suryakant
Tiwari used to extort money against the coal delivery orders,
at the connivance of the senior bureaucrats in Chhattisgarh
including the appellant, and how the said money extorted was
being utilized towards the payment of bribes and acquisition
of immovable properties for the bureaucrats including the
appellant.
(iii) The appellant, the Deputy Secretary attached as an OSD to the
CMO, though was relatively a junior oﬃcer, she used to exercise
considerable inﬂuence and control because of her access to
higher political powers, and the accused- Suryakant Tiwari
was able to operate the syndicate and the extortion racket only
because he had the backing of the appellant.
(iv) Investigation has revealed that the appellant was one of the key
persons in the creation of extortion racket run by Suryakant
Tiwari and that approximately Rs.540 crores were extorted by
Mr. Suryakant Tiwari. Further, Mr. Manish Upadhyay who was a
relative of the Suryakant Tiwari, and who was a close associate
of the appellant, was used as a layer of protection for the cash
dealings between Suryakant Tiwari and the appellant.
(v) The appellant had allegedly utilized the monies received from
the extortion racket towards the purchase of properties in
the names of her mother (Shanti Devi Chaurasia), her cousin
(Anurag Chaurasia) and her husband (Sourabh Modi), the details
of which have been given in the prosecution complaint.
(vi) The use of the expression “may be” in the proviso to Section
45 of PMLA indicates that the beneﬁt of the proviso cannot be
extended mandatorily or automatically, and the discretion has
to be exercised by the Courts depending upon the facts of each
case.
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

ANALYSIS
18. The object of the PMLA hardly needs to be delineated. The said Act
has been enacted to prevent money laundering and to provide for conﬁscation
of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for the matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto. As per Section 2(1)(p), “Money
Laundering” has the meaning assigned to it in Section 3. The oﬀence of Money
Laundering has been deﬁned in Section 3, which is punishable under Section 4
of the said Act. Section 45 makes the oﬀences under the PMLA to be cognizable
and non bailable. As regards the twin conditions for the grant of bail contained
in Section 45(1), it has been held by the Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal
(supra) that the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the Act
must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold
the objectives of the Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent
regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering.
19. Though it is true that the Court while considering an application
seeking bail is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating
agency meticulously, nonetheless the Court should keep in mind the nature of
accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of
the punishment prescribed for the alleged oﬀences, the character of the accused,
the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial, reasonable apprehension
of the witness being tempered with, the large interest of the public/ state etc.
Though the ﬁndings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing to grant bail
would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima
facie opinion while granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an
application of mind, particularly dealing with the serious economic oﬀences.
20. As stated hereinabove, the supplementary complaint was ﬁled against
the appellant along with the other accused on 30.01.2023, in which the
summary of investigative ﬁndings against each of the accused persons
have been recorded in Para 8 thereof. The details of the investigation
conducted by the respondent - ED have been stated in Para 9 and the role
of each accused including the appellant in the commission of alleged
oﬀence of money laundering has been stated in Para-10 thereof, which
reads as under: -
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 861
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

“10. Role of accused in the Oﬀence of Money laundering.
A. Evidences of Oﬀence of Money Laundering Against Smt. Saumya
Chaurasia –
Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia is an oﬃcer of the Chhattisgarh State Civil
Services who was posted as the Deputy Secretary in the Oﬃce of
Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and was working as an OSD to CM.
Despite being relatively very junior in the bureaucratic hierarchy, she
enjoyed unprecedented power & control because of her direct access
to higher political powers.
Information shared by the Income Tax Department and analysis of
documents and digital devices seized during the searches conducted
u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002 revealed that Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Deputy
Secretary working in the Chief Minister’s Oﬃce, is one of the key
persons in creation of the syndicate headed by Shri Suryakant Tiwari.
An extortion racket of this magnitude & nature was possible only when
multiple State agencies fell in place and everyone supported the illegal
acts of Suryakant Tiwari. This was made possible by Saumya Chaurasia
so that pliant oﬃcers were posted in the coal mining districts who
would listen to Suryakant Tiwari. Also, it was an unwritten rule that
instructions of Suryakant Tiwari meant the voice of Saumya Chaurasia
and the powers to be. The fact that Suryakant Tiwari had personal &
close oﬃcial dealings with her and was carrying her instructions to
the Oﬃcers, made it possible for Suryakant Tiwari to also command
senior District level oﬃcers. This illegal authority was essential for
him to run his empire of illegal extortion from Coal & Iron Pellet
transportation. Without his concurrence, no NOG was issued by the
district machinery. All this was made possible by the fact that he was in
the good books of Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia. Therefore, she has directly
indulged in the oﬀence of Money Laundering as deﬁned under section
3 of the PMLA, 2002 being actually involved in the process of Money
Laundering by way of possession, concealment, use, acquisition and
projecting the Proceeds of Crime as untainted property.
As per the ﬁndings of the investigation, it can be inferred that Saumya
Chaurasia has directly acquired proceeds of crime as deﬁned under
section 2(l)(u) of the PMLA, 2002 to an extent of more than Rs. 30
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

crores. ED’s investigation makes it evident that although all the money
of extortion on Coal & Iron Pellet transportation was collected by
the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari, he was not the ﬁnal beneﬁciary
of this scam. He did utilize large amounts of money for purchasing
benami assets, but big chunks of the money was transferred to Saumya
Chaurasia, spent on political funding and transferred as per the
instructions of higher powers.
Mr. Manish Upadhyay, a relative of Mr. Suryakant Tiwari, is a close
associate of both Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia & Mr. Suryakant Tiwari. ED
investigation has established that Mr. Manish Upadhyay was inserted in
as an extra layer of protection for cash dealings between Mr. Suryakant
Tiwari and Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia. He used to transport cash from
Mr. Suryakant Tiwari to Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia.
ED investigation has established that Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia and her
family went on a spree of acquiring immovable assets during the period
which coincided with the Coal levy scam. These assets of which she
is the real beneﬁcial owner were identiﬁed and attached by issuance
of Provisional Attachment Orders(s) as detailed in succeeding paras.”
21. The evidence relating to strong relations between the Appellant and
Mr. Suryakant Tiwari, between the Appellant and Mr. Manish Upadhyay,
and between the Appellant and Mr. Anurag Chaurasia; the evidences of
movement of funds acquired out of extortion syndicate run by Mr. Suryakant
Tiwari to Manish Upadhyay, proxy of the appellant; the utilization of
proceeds of crime and acquisition of properties by the appellant in the name
of her mother Shanti Devi and cousin Mr. Anurag Chaurasia 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 oﬀence of
money laundering as deﬁned in Section 3 of the said Act.
22. The next question that falls for consideration before the Court is
whether the appellant being a woman should be granted the beneﬁt of the
ﬁrst proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, which reads as under: -
“45. Oﬀences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -
(1) …………………………..
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 863
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a
woman or is sick or inﬁrm [or is accused either on his own or along
with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one
crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the special court so directs:
(2) ……………………………”
23. Recently, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Enforcement
Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra observed in the order dated 04.08.2023 in
SLP (Crl.) No. 7409 of 2023 as under: -
“The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the
accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean
that the statutory provision does not mean that person speciﬁed in the
ﬁrst proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be
released on bail. (See Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi and Another
(2001) 4 SCC 280).”
24. The use of the expression “may be” in the ﬁrst proviso to Section 45
clearly indicates that the beneﬁt of the said proviso to the category of persons
mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the Court considering
the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as a
mandatory or obligatory on the part of the Court to release them. Similar
benevolent provision for granting bail to the category of persons below the
age of sixteen years, women, sick or inﬁrm has been made in Section 437
Cr.P.C. and many other special enactments also, however by no stretch of
imagination could such provision be construed as obligatory or mandatory
in nature, otherwise all serious oﬀences under such special Acts would be
committed involving women and persons of tender age below 16 years.
No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the
category of persons included in the ﬁrst proviso to Section 45 and similar
provisions in the other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women
who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the
unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such Crimes,
nonetheless, the courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays
the educated and well placed women in the society engage themselves in
the commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

engage themselves in the illegal activities. In essence, the courts should
exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while granting the
beneﬁt of the ﬁrst proviso to Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons
mentioned therein. The extent of involvement of the persons falling in such
category in the alleged oﬀences, the nature of evidence collected by the
investigating agency etc., would be material considerations.
25. In the instant case as discussed hereinabove, there is suﬃcient
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 Oﬃce of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the
oﬀence of Money Laundering as deﬁned in Section 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 oﬀence and the special beneﬁt as
contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the appellant
who is a lady.
26. The Court also does not ﬁnd any substance in the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal for the Appellant that
the scheduled oﬀences i.e. Section 384 and 120 B having been dropped
from the chargesheet submitted against the accused Suryakant Tiwari in
connection with the FIR No. 129 of 2022 registered at Kadugodi Police
Station Bengaluru, and the ACJM Bengaluru vide the order dated 16.06.2023
having taken cognizance for the oﬀence punishable under Section 204 and
353 IPC only, which are not the scheduled oﬀences under the PMLA Act,
no scheduled oﬀence survived at the time of passing of the impugned order
and that the proceedings were/are without jurisdiction.
27. Apart from the fact that neither the Chargesheet dated 08.06.2023
nor the cognizance order 16.06.2023 were placed on record during the course
of arguments before the High Court as they never existed at that time, the
I.O. in the Chargesheet ﬁled in connection with the said FIR no. 129 of 2022
against Suryakant Tiwari has categorically mentioned that “as the accused
(Suryakant Tiwari) found to be committed oﬀence under Section 384 of
IPC with his henchmen at Chhattisgarh State for which the report would be
prayed to Chhattisgarh Police through proper channel.” Hence, the oﬀence
under Section 384 could not be said to have been dropped by the I.O. while
submitting the chargesheet in respect of the said FIR.
SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF 865
ENFORCEMENT [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

28. That apart, it is very much pertinent to note that when the FIR is
registered under particular oﬀences which include the oﬀences 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 oﬀence or not. The oﬀences mentioned in the
chargesheet by the I.O. could never be said to be the ﬁnal conclusion as to
whether the oﬀences scheduled in PMLA existed or not, more particularly
when the same were mentioned in the FIR registered against the accused.
As held by the Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra), it is only in
the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled
oﬀence is ﬁnally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to
an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case
(scheduled oﬀence) against him/ her, there can be no action for money
laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation
to the property linked to the stated scheduled oﬀence.
29. In the instant case, there is neither discharge nor acquittal nor
quashing of the criminal case by the court of competent jurisdiction against
Suryakant Tiwari in the predicate/ scheduled oﬀence.
30. In that view of the matter the Court does not ﬁnd any merit in the
instant appeal. Since the Court has found that there was an attempt made by
and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect
statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High
Court, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed
with cost of Rs.1 Lakh, which shall be deposited by the Appellant before
the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.
31. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

Headnotes prepared by: Appeal dismissed.
Ankit Gyan

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "money laundering"Sign in to search