# Keshav Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 44
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4122 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/keshav-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50897
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 328 - POCSO
Act, 2012 - Section 3⁄4 - Instant criminal
revision filed by complainant/informant
against orders of J.J.Board and Children's
Court, whereby opposite party declared
juvenile on basis of date of birth recorded
in matriculation certificate, while ignoring
date of birth recorded in primary school
records from Classes I to V - Held, on
consideration of St.ments of C.W.1, C.W.3,
C.W.4 and entries in S.R. Registers of
concerned schools, it established that
opposite party first attended Primary
School Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra in Class
I on 13.07.2009, continued his studies
upto 31.01.2013, where his date of birth
recorded as 17.07.2003 - Subsequently,
without producing any transfer certificate
or documents relating to date of birth, his
uncle secured admission on basis of test in
Shanti Devi Saraswati Shishu Mandir,
Kheragarh, Agra by concealing earlier
records and mentioning date of birth as
17.09.2006 - For determination of age of
child, date of birth recorded in first
2 All. Keshav Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
45
attended school is relevant and reliable -
J.J. Board and Appellate Court failed to
consider facts and their orders are not in
conformity with Section 94 of Act or law
laid down in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (infra)
-
Accordingly, revision allowed, both
impugned
orders
set
aside,
opposite
party's date of birth as mentioned in first
attending school i.e. 17.07.2003, making
him 18 years, 8 months, and 8 days old,
thus major. (Para 3, 13)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
show to the court that there is no need of
trial against him. It is to be seen that before
framing of the charge under Section 246
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to form an
opinion about their being grounds for
presuming that the accused had committed
the offence triable under the Chapter. If, it
is held that there is no right of crossexamination under Section 244, then the
accused would have no opportunity to
show to the Magistrate that the allegations
are groundless and that there is no scope of
framing of charge against him.

14. On the basis of foregoing
discussions and observations, this Court is
of considered opinion that the learned trial
court has not committed any illegality,
irregularity or perversity while dismissing
the discharge application moved by the
accused revisionist under Section 245(2)
Cr.P.C., however, the accused will have
right to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses at the stage of evidence under
Section 244 Cr.P.C. and before framing of
charge, so that he may be able to show to
the court that there is no need of trial
against him and he is liable to be
discharged under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. He
can confront the witnesses with regard to
documents placed in support of his claim
that the matter is essentially of civil nature
and no charge as alleged against him is
made out in the case.

15. Accordingly, the revision stands
dismissed with above observations.

16. However, in case the accusedrevisionist is not already enlarged on bail in
the case, he is at liberty to move a bail
application before the court below and the
same will be disposed of in the light of
guidelines issued by Apex Court in
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 44
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4122 of 2023

Keshav Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rajeev Kumar, Sri Prashant Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, Sri Firoz
Ahmad Khan

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 328 - POCSO
Act, 2012 - Section 3⁄4 - Instant criminal
revision filed by complainant/informant
against orders of J.J.Board and Children's
Court, whereby opposite party declared
juvenile on basis of date of birth recorded
in matriculation certificate, while ignoring
date of birth recorded in primary school
records from Classes I to V - Held, on
consideration of St.ments of C.W.1, C.W.3,
C.W.4 and entries in S.R. Registers of
concerned schools, it established that
opposite party first attended Primary
School Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra in Class
I on 13.07.2009, continued his studies
upto 31.01.2013, where his date of birth
recorded as 17.07.2003 - Subsequently,
without producing any transfer certificate
or documents relating to date of birth, his
uncle secured admission on basis of test in
Shanti Devi Saraswati Shishu Mandir,
Kheragarh, Agra by concealing earlier
records and mentioning date of birth as
17.09.2006 - For determination of age of
child, date of birth recorded in first
2 All. Keshav Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
45
attended school is relevant and reliable -
J.J. Board and Appellate Court failed to
consider facts and their orders are not in
conformity with Section 94 of Act or law
laid down in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (infra)
-
Accordingly, revision allowed, both
impugned
orders
set
aside,
opposite
party's date of birth as mentioned in first
attending school i.e. 17.07.2003, making
him 18 years, 8 months, and 8 days old,
thus major. (Para 3, 13)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs St. of U.P & ors. AIR
2019 Supreme Court 4364, (Paras 14, 15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri Firoz Ahmad
Khan learned counsel for the opposite party
as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

2. The present criminal revision has
been preferred by the revisionist with a
prayer to allow this revision and set aside
the judgment and order dated 15.04.2023
passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge Agra in Criminal Appeal
No. 137 of 2022 as well as order dated
20.10.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Agra in Case Crime No. 58 of 2022
under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 328 I.P.C.
and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Kheragarh, District Agra by which opposite
party No. 2 was declared to be juvenile.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the revisionist that this criminal revision
has been preferred on the part of
complainant/ informant against the order
passed by the learned J.J. Board as well as
Children's Court by which the opposite
party has been declared to be juvenile on
the basis of date of birth as recorded in
matriculation certificate while ignoring the
date of birth which was recorded in primary
school record that is from Class First to
Class Fifth.

4. It is further submitted that the
opposite party first studied in Primary
School Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra run by
government in Class First and continued
his studies up to Class Fifth where his date
of birth was got recorded as 17.07.2003 by
father of the opposite party then in Class
Fifth he discontinued his studies that was
the reason his name was discontinued from
the record but no any transfer certificate
was obtained by him from that school and
he came in some other school that is Shanti
Devi Saraswati Shishu Mandir Kheragarh,
Agra and took admission in Class Third at
the instance of his uncle Kedar Singh and
continued his further studies up to Class
Tenth where his date of birth was recorded
as 17.09.2006 while concealing the date of
birth and the previous education record in
aforesaid primary school. No any other
proof of date of birth was provided by the
opposite party to the subsequent school. In
this way he changed his date of birth and
after adding three years in his age he got
the date of birth registered as 17.09.2006
on the place of 17.07.2003. Before the
learned J.J. Board both the records were
produced and this fact was brought on
record on the part of the revisionist and the
documents were also proved by C.W. 3 the
Head Master of Primary School Kukandai,
Kheragarh, Agra Sri Jag Mohan Singh and
certified copy of S.R. Register was also
filed. C.W. 4 Keshav Dev Saraswat, Head
Master of Shanti Devi Saraswati Shishu
Mandir
Kheragarh,
Agra
was
also
examined and he also filed copy of S.R.
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Register showing the date of birth as
17.09.2006 and also the admission form
which was signed by the uncle of the
opposite party and also stated before the
learned Board that no proof of date of birth
of opposite party was provided to him by
either the opposite party or his uncle and
his admission was taken in Class Third on
the basis of test. This fact was not disclosed
by the revisionist before the subsequent
school that he already studied in Primary
School Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra. In this
way he made addition in his date of birth
by concealing the previous record and
passed matriculation. All these facts were
also on record but not taken into
consideration by the learned J.J. Board
while passing the order but on the basis of
date of birth as recorded in matriculation
certificate he held him to be juvenile
whereas on the basis of previous academic
record he was major. This fact was also not
considered by the learned appellate court
but appeal was dismissed which cannot be
said to be lawful and based on material on
record, therefore request to set aside the
orders passed by the learned Board as well
as learned appellate court and to allow the
appeal.

5. Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan learned
counsel for the opposite party as well as
learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as
aforesaid. It was contended by learned
counsel for the opposite party that in the
record of Primary School Kukandai,
Kheragarh, Agra the mother's name of the
opposite party was recorded as Golu Devi
whereas his mother's name is Laxmi Devi
and it was got registered in the record of
subsequent school by uncle of the opposite
party. No any other documentary evidence
regarding date of birth of the opposite party
was produced by the revisionist before the
learned Board to doubt the genuineness of
date of birth as recorded in subsequent
school except S.R. Register. There was no
any other document in Primary School to
show that the opposite party studied there
from Class First to Fifth but true fact was
that he studied in Shanti Devi Saraswati
Shishu Mandir Kheragarh, Agra from Class
Third to Class Tenth on the basis of test and
he never attended the Primary School
Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra. Learned J.J.
Board as well as learned appellate court
considered all these facts and passed the
orders as aforesaid. In this way the orders
passed by the learned courts below cannot
be said to be illegal but this revision being
devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice
Act
contains
the
procedure
for
determination of age of the child as under:

(1) Where, it is obvious to the
Committee or the Board, based on the
appearance of the person brought before it
under any of the provisions of this Act
(other than for the purpose of giving
evidence) that the said person is a child,
the Committee or the Board shall record
such observation stating the age of the
child as nearly as may be and proceed with
the inquiry under section 14 or section 36,
as the case may be, without waiting for
further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the
Board has reasonable grounds for doubt
regarding whether the person brought
before it is a child or not, the Committee or
the Board, as the case may be, shall
undertake the process of age determination,
by seeking evidence by obtaining

(i) the date of birth certificate
from the school, or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;
2 All. Keshav Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
47

(ii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
and (ii) above, age shall be determined by
an ossification test or any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the
Board:

Provided such age determination
test conducted on the order of the
Committee or the Board shall be completed
within fifteen days from the date of such
order.

(3) The age recorded by the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the
true age of that person.

7. In this regard Para 14 and 15 of the
judgment in the case of Sanjeev Kumar
Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others AIR
2019 Supreme Court 4364 is noteworthy
which is as under:-

14. Now it is in this background that it
becomes necessary for the Court to
determine whether the High Court, in the
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was
justified in reversing the view of the learned
Sessions Judge that the second respondent
was not a juvenile on the date of the
incident. In seeking to place reliance on the
date of birth (17 December 1998) recorded
in the CBSE matriculation certificate,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent has submitted that
under the provisions of Rule 12(3)(a) the
said certificate has precedence over any
other evidentiary document. In the course
of the hearing of the appeal, we directed
the CBSE to produce its records and to file
an affidavit indicating the basis on which
the date of birth was recorded in the
matriculation certificate. The affidavit filed
by the CBSE indicates that the date of birth
in the records maintained by the CBSE was
recorded purely on the basis of the final list
of students forwarded by Maa Anjani
Senior Secondary School, Etah Road,
Shikohabad. The affidavit of the Assistant
Secretary, CBSE states:

"? Maa Anjani Senior Secondary
School, Etah Road, Shikohabad, sent Final
list of Students registered for Class IX
(2011-12)
as
(Eligible
for
Class
X
Examination Year 2013) of the School to
the Central Board of Secondary Education,
Regional office, Allahabad. In the said
Final List of Students registered for Class
IX (2011-12) (Eligible for Class X
Examination for year ? 2013) at Serial No
00068 shows the name of Puneet Yadav son
of Shri Rameshwar Singh and Smt Vishesh
Devi and his date of birth has been shown
as 17.12.1998 which contain the Signature
and Photograph of Puneet Yadav. The date
of Entry has been shown as 08.09.2011."

"... the Principal, Maa Anjani
Senior Secondary School, Shikohabad, vide
letter dated 04.02.2013 sent Roll Number ?
wise List of 248 candidates for class X2013
to
the
Assistant
Secretary
(Examination), C.B.S.E., Allahabad. Name
of Puneet Yadav son of Rameshwar Singh
and Mrs Vishesh Devi, Roll No 5156848
has been shown with date of birth as
17.12.1998 at page No 896 of the List, with
the signature of Puneet Yadav."

"? the Certificate for Secondary
School Examination (Session 2011-13)
(true copy of which was been appended as
Annexure CA-1 received by the Central
Board of Secondary Education with the
Order dated 16.04.2019 of this Hon'ble
Court) showing the Date of Birth of Puneet
Yadav as 17.12.1998 was issued on the
basis of aforementioned records of the
Central Board of Secondary Education."
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

CBSE has stated before this
Court that the date recorded in the
matriculation certificate was purely on the
basis of the final list of students forwarded
by the Headmaster of Maa Anjani Senior
Secondary
School,
Shikohabad.
The
Headmaster of the Maa Anjani Senior
Secondary School, Shikohabad deposed
during the enquiry before the JJB,
Firozabad.
In
the
course
of
her
examination, Headmaster Dipti Solanki
stated:

"...We note down the date of birth
of the student at the time of admission as
per the information given by the parents
and at the same time we obtain an affidavit
but we could not procure an affidavit from
this student. I have committed a mistake by
not procuring an Affidavit from this
student. The date of birth was entered on
the basis of the information given by the
parent/father."

The Headmaster further stated:

"...The father did not produce any
record at the time of admission in respect of
the date of birth of the student. They would
have been asked to produce the record of
class 4 at the time of admission but they did
not. I cannot tell the reason thereof. The
students
are
admitted
without
any
document upto class 5."

The above deposition indicates
that the second respondent was admitted to
Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School,
Shikohabad in the fifth standard and was a
student of the school until he completed his
matriculation.
The
second
respondent
attended the Saket Vidyasthali, Jedajhal,
Firozabad until the fourth standard. The
school register and transfer certificate form
of that school specifically contains an entry
in regard to the date of birth of the second
respondent as 17 December 1995. Mr
Ravindra Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the second
respondent has urged that the discrepancies
which have been brought out in the course
of the cross-examination of the former
Manager of the school would indicate that
there is a doubt in regard to the
authenticity of that certificate. However, in
our view, what must weigh against the
second respondent's submission is that the
date of birth which has been recorded in
the certificate of the Saket Vidya Sthali
completely matches the date of birth which
was voluntarily disclosed by the second
respondent both while obtaining his driving
licence as well as the Aadhaar card. In
both those documents, the originals of
which were seized during the course of the
investigation and have been produced
before this Court, the date of birth is
reflected as 17 December 1995. The driving
license and the Aadhaar card are not
standalone documents. The submission of
the learned senior counsel that the date of
birth in those documents may have been
furnished by the accused to obtain an
undue
advantage
cannot
simply
be
accepted since it tallies with the date of
birth indicated in the school records of
Saket Vidya Sthali school. It is evident from
the above analysis that the date of birth
which was forwarded in the roll of students
of Maa Anjani Senior Secondary School,
Shikohabad was the sole basis of the date
of birth which was recorded in the
matriculation certificate. The date of birth
in the records of Maa Anjani Senior
Secondary
School
where
the
second
respondent was a student from Class V to
Class
X
is
without
any
underlying
document, as stated by the Principal in the
course of the enquiry before the JJB. On
the other hand, there is a clear and
unimpeachable evidence in the form of the
date of birth which has been recorded in
the records of Saket Vidya Sthali school
which is supported by the voluntary
2 All. Keshav Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
49
disclosure made by the second respondent
while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and
the driving licence. The High Court
reversed the findings of the Sessions Judge
purely on the basis of the matriculation
certificate. For the reasons which we have
indicated, the date of birth as reflected
therein cannot be accepted as authentic or
credible. Once we come to the conclusion,
as we have, that the date of birth of the
second respondent is 17 December 1995,
he was not entitled to the claim of juvenility
as of the date of the alleged incident which
took place on 18 August 2015.

15. For the above reasons, we
allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High
Court dated 14 November 2018. Criminal
Revision 2952 of 2017 shall in consequence
stand dismissed. The order passed by the
Sessions Judge, confirming the decision of
the JJB rejecting the claim of juvenility is
accordingly
maintained.
The
second
respondent shall accordingly be dealt with
in accordance with law on the basis of the
finding recorded in the present judgment,
rejecting the claim of juvenility.

8. From perusal of record it appears
that the father's name of the opposite party
was Sri Ashok Kumar and his mother was
Golo Devi as shown in the Ration card
belonging to his family which is on record.
Even in the Voter list the name of the
mother of the opposite party is entered as
Golo Devi. In the Ration card the name of
opposite party has also been entered as son
of Ashok in which mother's name Golo
Devi has been entered as Mukhiya of the
family. It establishes well that Golo Devi is
the mother of the opposite party and she
has been named as Laxmi Devi in
subsequent academic record of the opposite
party. In this way, the contention made by
learned counsel for the opposite party
cannot be accepted that Golo Devi and
Laxmi Devi are two ladies and Golo Devi
is not mother of the opposite party.

9. There is statement of C.W. 3 Head
Master of Primary School Kukandai,
Kheragarh, Agra Sri Jag Mohan Singh who
clearly stated that the opposite party took
admission in his school on 13.07.2009 in
Class First whose date of birth as got
registered was 17.07.2003 and it was also
entered in the S.R. Register at Serial No.
1569. He studied there up to standard Fifth.
Copy of S.R. Register was marked as
Exhibit Ka 1. Opposite party passed Class
Fourth and took admission in Class Fifth
but he became absent that was the reason
his name was discontinued and no any
transfer certificate was taken by him.

10. C.W. 4 Sri Keshav Dev Saraswat,
Head Master of Shanti Devi Saraswati
Shishu Mandir Kheragarh, Agra stated that
the opposite party took admission on
01.07.2014 in his school in Class Third and
studied till Class Fifth up to 30.03.2017 and
then he took his transfer certificate on
16.09.2017. On admission his date of birth
was entered as 17.09.2006 but no any
certificate in support thereof was given by
him. His admission was taken on the basis
of test in Class Third. Sri Kedar Singh
made his signature in the admission form as
guardian. He also filed copy of S.R.
Register and the admission form and no
any certificate regarding date of birth was
filed in his school. In the admission form
the date of birth of the opposite party was
mentioned as 17.09.2006 by Sri Kedar
Singh but it was not written by his father
Sri Ashok Kumar. C.W. 2 Manoj Kumar,
Head Master of Sri Pooran Chand Ramesh
Chand Saraswati Vidya Mandir Kheragarh,
Agra was also examined who made
statement regarding education of opposite
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party from Class Sixth to Class Tenth and
also filed copy of S.R. Register in which in
support of his date of birth transfer
certificate from the school Shanti Devi
Saraswati Shishu Mandir Kheragarh, Agra
was attached. C.W. 1 Ashok Kumar, father
of the opposite party was also examined
who stated about the education of opposite
party in Shanti Devi Saraswati Shishu
Mandir Kheragarh, Agra and also stated
that admission form was filed by his
younger brother Sri Kedar Singh and said
that he did not know about the date of birth
mentioned by him in the school.

11. In Exhibit Ka 1, certified copy of
S.R. Register which was filed by Head
Master of Primary School Kukandai,
Kheragarh, Agra Sri Jagmohan Singh, on
Serial No. 1569 the name of opposite party
has been entered and his date of birth is
17.07.2003 in figures and also in words.
Father's name is Ashok Kumar and mother
is Golo Devi. Date of admission in the
school is 13.07.2009 in Class First,
01.07.2010 in Class Second 01.07.2011 in
Class Third and in Class Fourth 01.07.2012
and 01.07.2013 in Class Fifth and his name
was discontinued on 31.01.2013 on account
of continuous absence. The education
record was also got verified through B.S.A.
By the learned Board in which the record
was found as aforesaid.

12. In Primary School record, date of
birth was recorded as 17.07.2003 and in
subsequent school that is Shanti Devi
Saraswati Shishu Mandir Kheragarh, Agra
where date of birth was recorded as
17.09.2006.

13. On considering the statements of
C.W. 1, C.W. 3, C.W. 4 and the entries
made in S.R. Registers of previous and
subsequent schools it is established that in
this case the opposite party first attended
Primary School Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra
in Class First on 13.07.2009 and continued
his studies up to 31.01.2013 and then he
took admission in Class Third in Shanti
Devi Saraswati Shishu Mandir Kheragarh,
Agra in Class Third on the basis of test and
without providing any document relating to
his date of birth including the transfer
certificate issued from Primary School
Kukandai, Kheragarh, Agra as aforesaid
where his date of birth was recorded as
17.07.2003 but his uncle Sri Kedar Singh
by mentioning his date of birth as
17.09.2006 got his admission done in the
school Shanti Devi Saraswati Shishu
Mandir Kheragarh, Agra while concealing
the previous educational studies and the
date of birth. In this way, for determining
the age of the child/ opposite party the date
of birth as mentioned in first attended
school is relevant and can be relied on. The
learned J.J. Board as well as learned
appellate court did not consider all these
facts while passing the orders in question
that cannot be said to be based on the
material on record and also in conformity
with
relevant
provisions
of
law
as
contained under Section 94 of the Act and
in view of the ratio in Sanjeev Kumar
Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others AIR
2019 Supreme Court 4364. As a result this
revision being forceful is hereby allowed
and order dated 20.10.2022 passed by
learned J.J. Board as well as order dated
15.04.2023 passed by learned Appellate
Court are hereby set aside and the age of
the opposite party on the basis of his date
of birth as mentioned in first attending
school that is 17.07.2003 is determined
which comes as 18 years 8 months and 8
days i.e. more than 18 and he is held major.

14. Accordingly, learned Board is
directed
to
proceed
further.
2 All. Ajeet Pandey Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
51
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 51
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I,
J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 737 of 2024

Ajeet Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Kuldeep Srivastava, A.S.G.I.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(PMLA) - Sections 2(1)(a), 5, 6 & 8 -
Adjudicating Authority
-
Composition and
Jurisdiction - Chairperson Vacancy - Validity of
Single-Member Bench - Maintainability of Writ
Petition

The petitioner, a director of M/s Kandarp Hotels
Pvt. Lt and former managing director of M/s
Gangotri Enterprises Limited, challenged the
validity of proceedings before the Adjudicating
Authority under the PMLA, 2002, following a
Provisional Attachment Order dated 17.11.2023,
an Original Complaint No. 2119/2023, and a
Show Cause Notice dated 14.12.2023, arguing
that the Adjudicating Authority was not duly
constituted due to the absence of a Chairperson
after the retirement of Mr. Vinodanand Jha on
22.06.2023. The petitioner sought a mandamus
to direct the constitution of a proper Adjudicating
Authority under Section 6 and to stay proceedings,
claiming the single-member bench was coram non
judice. Held: Section 6(2) of the PMLA mandates
an
Adjudicating
Authority
comprising
a
Chairperson and two members, but Section
6(5)(b) allows the Chairperson to constitute
benches with one or two members. Section 6(7)
permits a single-member bench to hear matters,
with the option to transfer complex cases to a twomember bench. Section 6(13) provides that in any
vacancy (temporary or substantive) in the
Chairperson's office, the senior-most member can
act as Chairperson. The court rejected the
petitioner's contention that Section 6(13) applies
only to temporary vacancies, holding that the
absence of qualifiers in the provision indicates it
covers both types of vacancies, unlike Section
6(10), which explicitly addresses vacancies "other
than
temporary
absence."
The
procedural
requirement under Regulation 26(2) of the 2013
PMLA Regulations for the Chairperson's signature
on orders is directory, not mandatory, and does
not invalidate single-member proceedings. Relying
on Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Lt Vs Directorate of
Enforcement (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5900) and J.
Sekar Vs U.O.I. (W.P. (C) 5320/2017), the court
upheld the validity of a single-member bench. The
writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had a
statutory remedy to file a reply before the
Adjudicating
Authority
and
approach
the
appropriate forum if aggrieved, as per N.P.
Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer (AIR 1952 SC
64).

Case Law Cited:

1. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs Yogesh Kumar
Gupta, AIR 1998 SC 1021

2. Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Lt Vs Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5900

3. J. Sekar Vs U.O.I., W.P. (C) 5320/2017 (Delhi
HC, 11.01.2018)

4. N.P. Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer, AIR
1952 SC 64

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

(1) Heard Shri N. K. Seth, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish
Chaturvedi, for the petitioner and Shri
Kuldeep Srivastava, appearing for the
Opposite party no.1.