Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a prosecution launched by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against M/s. Om Sri Granites and M/s. Pallava Granites Industries Limited and their partners and key officials, including the petitioner A.Chellakumar (Accused No.9). The allegations involve illegal granite stone quarrying activities, forgery, illegal usage of explosives, encroachment, trespassing, and causing loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.221.73 crores and corresponding wrongful gain during 2001 to 2012. FIRs were registered in Crime Nos. 158 of 2012, 206 of 2012, and 223 of 2013, and charge sheets were laid. The Enforcement Directorate investigated and found proceeds of crime approximately Rs.215.36 crores, leading to provisional attachment of properties, including one belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner filed two applications before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai: one for discharge from the criminal case (Cr.M.P.No.6348 of 2022) and another for appointment of an independent geological expert to inspect the spot and file a valuation report (Cr.M.P.No.6347 of 2022). Both applications were dismissed by the trial court on 11.11.2025. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing two criminal revision petitions under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is only required to see whether there is a prima facie case against the accused and cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. The court found that there were sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner. Regarding the expert appointment, the court held that it is not necessary at the charge framing stage and the petitioner can raise the issue during trial. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Prima Facie Case - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Sections 3 and 4 - The court held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is only required to see whether there is a prima facie case against the accused and cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. The trial court's dismissal of the discharge application was upheld as there were sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner. (Paras 5-8) B) Evidence - Expert Opinion - Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that the appointment of an expert to inspect the spot and file a valuation report is not necessary at the stage of framing of charges. The petitioner can raise the issue of valuation during trial. The trial court's dismissal of the application for appointment of an expert was upheld. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the applications for discharge and for appointment of an expert to inspect the spot and file a valuation report in a PMLA case involving illegal granite quarrying.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision petitions are dismissed. The orders of the trial court dated 11.11.2025 in Cr.M.P.Nos.6347 and 6348 of 2022 in C.C.No.5 of 2022 are upheld.
Law Points
- Prima facie case at charge framing stage
- No mini-trial at discharge stage
- Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- 2002
- Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- 2023
