LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 1029Decided 29 Nov 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Pankaj Mithal

Background

The appellant's husband was Vice-Chancellor of Alliance University, and she herself briefly held that post. A criminal case alleged that one Madhukar Angur collected about Rs. 107 crores from students by falsely posing as the University's Chancellor. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) later filed a money-laundering complaint naming the appellant as an accused, alleging she helped Angur launder the proceeds by having two properties registered in her name using a nominal sale arrangement. She was not named as an accused in any of the underlying criminal cases (the "scheduled offences"): the only common thread was a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, which by itself is listed in the PMLA's Schedule of offences.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a person need not be an accused in the underlying scheduled offence to face a money-laundering charge, and rejected the argument that the first property (bought in 2013, before the alleged fraud even began) had no link to the crime, though it left open for trial whether the second property was bought using tainted money. However, the Court ruled decisively on the key legal question: Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) only counts as a "scheduled offence" under PMLA if the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence that is itself already listed in the PMLA Schedule, not any and every offence. Since none of the underlying chargesheets against Angur alleged conspiracy to commit a scheduled offence, there was no valid scheduled offence against the appellant at all, and her prosecution under the PMLA could not proceed. The complaint against her was quashed and the appeal allowed.

Lesson Learnt

Merely invoking the general conspiracy provision (Section 120-B IPC) cannot be used to sweep any and every non-scheduled crime into the strict and stringent framework of the anti-money-laundering law: the underlying conspiracy must specifically target an offence that Parliament has actually chosen to list as triggering PMLA action.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case