sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement* W.P. No. 28140 of 2022 Dated: 19.12.2022 *HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Foreign Exchange – Enforcement – PMLA”*, and further observed and held as follows:

[12/22, 07:20] sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*

*Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement*
W.P. No. 28140 of 2022
Dated: 19.12.2022

*HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH* dismissed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Foreign Exchange – Enforcement – PMLA”*, and further observed and held as follows:

1) The Supreme Court in _Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors._ held that ECIR is an internal departmental document which cannot be equated with an FIR and it only paves way for commencing an investigation under the PML Act.

2) To start an investigation, it is required that there must be a predicate offence which must be a schedule offence as specified in PML Act. It is enough if there is a _prima facie_ material to show that the schedule offence has generated proceeds of crime.

3) The Court, if convinced that investigation is within the powers of PMLA and there is no misuse of power, cannot act as a stumbling block to progress of investigation.

4) Courts are not expected to stall investigations, which is the exclusive domain of executive, unless it is found to be without jurisdiction or there is misuse of power, or if there is an abuse of process of law.

5) Since predicate offence under Section 420 IPC was _prima facie_ made out, the Court shall not interfere. It is upto the petitioner to submit explanation to the respondent and respondent is expected to proceed with investigation within the scope of PML Act.
[12/22, 07:20] sekarreporter1: 💐