Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed the admissibility of confessional statements made by co-accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Justice Vikas Mahajan clarified that such statements are not substantive evidence but can be used for corroboration during trial. The judgment arose in the case of Sanjay Jain, an accused in a money laundering matter related to alleged corruption and loss to the exchequer.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The defense, represented by counsel Mr. Dayan Krishnan, contended that the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA should only be considered for bail applications to ascertain broad probabilities of guilt. The Enforcement Directorate, represented by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, argued against granting bail to Jain, emphasizing the importance of considering the statements during investigation to assess the likelihood of guilt.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Mahajan clarified that statements under Section 50 of the PMLA are not substantive evidence but can be considered at the bail stage for assessing broad probabilities. The court highlighted that a mini-trial should not occur during bail proceedings and that the trial court should meticulously appreciate these statements during the trial. Granting bail to Jain, the court considered the weakness of the predicate offense and the non-arrest of co-accused, concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe Jain was not guilty.