Scheduled Offence, Predicate FIR and ECIR Under PMLA: What Must Legally Exist Before ED Can Proceed?

A Prevention of Money-Laundering Act proceeding cannot be sustained merely because the Enforcement Directorate has recorded an ECIR or suspects that money moved through several accounts.

The statutory foundation must begin with criminal activity relating to an offence included in the PMLA Schedule.

That criminal activity must allegedly generate property, and the person proceeded against must be connected with a process or activity concerning that property.

Direct Answer

For a legally sustainable PMLA case, there must ordinarily be an actual scheduled offence registered or pending through a recognised criminal complaint, inquiry or trial before the competent forum, property derived or obtained from that scheduled criminal activity and person-specific involvement in a process connected with those alleged proceeds.

An ECIR alone is not enough.

The essential sequence is:

Scheduled offence → criminal activity → property generated → proceeds of crime → Section 3 process or activity → individual role.

The following sequence is legally incomplete:

ECIR recorded → money laundering automatically proved.

What Is a Scheduled Offence?

“Scheduled offence” is the expression used by the PMLA.

It means an offence included in the Schedule to the Act through:

  • Part A;
  • Part B, subject to the applicable statutory value requirement;
  • Part C concerning specified trans-border offences.

The precise Schedule applicable to the transaction period should be checked because:

  • offences may be added or amended;
  • section numbers may change;
  • thresholds may apply;
  • the substantive penal law may have changed;
  • the alleged laundering activity may occur at a different time from the predicate crime.

Scheduled Offence and Predicate Offence: Is There a Difference?

In ordinary PMLA discussion, the two expressions generally refer to the same underlying criminal offence.

Expression Meaning
Scheduled offence The statutory expression used in Section 2 and the Schedule to the PMLA.
Predicate offence A commonly used expression for the underlying crime from which alleged proceeds arise.

The scheduled or predicate offence is not itself the offence of money laundering.

The two offences have different ingredients.

What Must Exist Before ED Can Proceed?

The complete foundation ordinarily contains six elements.

1. An offence in the PMLA Schedule

The allegation must concern an offence legally included in the Schedule.

2. A real predicate proceeding

The scheduled offence must ordinarily be registered or legally pending before the competent police, agency, court or forum.

3. Criminal activity

The prosecution must identify the criminal acts allegedly constituting the scheduled offence.

4. Property generated

There must be property allegedly derived or obtained from that criminal activity.

5. A process connected with the property

The allegation must concern concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection, claiming or another legally relevant Section 3 activity.

6. Individual involvement

ED must identify the accused person’s knowledge, assistance, control, possession, benefit or other actual role.

Must a Police FIR Always Exist?

A police FIR is the most common predicate foundation.

However, the legal principle is broader than the existence of one document titled “FIR.”

A scheduled offence may be reflected through:

  • a police FIR;
  • a CBI Regular Case;
  • a complaint instituted by a competent authority;
  • a charge sheet or prosecution complaint under another statute;
  • a pending criminal inquiry or trial before the competent forum.

The decisive questions are:

  • Is there an actual scheduled offence?
  • Has it been registered or legally instituted?
  • Is it pending before the competent authority or forum?
  • Does it concern the criminal activity from which ED alleges that property was generated?

Can ED Proceed Merely on Suspicion That a Scheduled Offence Occurred?

No PMLA prosecution should rest on a notional assumption that an unspecified scheduled offence may have been committed.

The foundation should identify:

  • the exact offence;
  • the statutory provision;
  • the predicate case or complaint;
  • the competent investigating or prosecuting authority;
  • the alleged criminal activity;
  • the proceeds allegedly generated.

An internal ED conclusion cannot independently convert:

  • a civil dispute;
  • a contractual breach;
  • a regulatory contravention;
  • an accounting discrepancy;
  • a tax issue;
  • a non-scheduled penal allegation

into a scheduled offence.

What Is a Predicate FIR?

A predicate FIR is an FIR containing one or more offences included in the PMLA Schedule and relied upon as the source of alleged criminal proceeds.

A proper predicate-FIR review should identify:

  • FIR number;
  • police station or agency;
  • registration date;
  • occurrence period;
  • offences invoked;
  • complainant;
  • accused persons;
  • alleged amount or property;
  • investigation status;
  • charge-sheet status;
  • court and cognizance status.

What If the FIR Contains Only Non-Scheduled Offences?

A serious or high-value criminal allegation does not automatically fall within PMLA.

The FIR must contain or legally develop into at least one offence included in the PMLA Schedule.

The following are not enough by themselves:

  • the transaction involved a substantial amount;
  • the allegation concerns public money;
  • the business records are suspicious;
  • several persons are involved;
  • criminal conspiracy is mentioned;
  • the offence is non-bailable;
  • the conduct is punishable under another regulatory statute.

If only non-scheduled offences legally survive, the PMLA foundation becomes vulnerable.

What If a Scheduled Offence Is Added Later?

A scheduled offence may be added during investigation where the competent agency finds material supporting it.

The defence should examine:

  • the date on which it was added;
  • the evidence supporting the addition;
  • whether the legal ingredients are disclosed;
  • whether the section was retained in the charge sheet;
  • whether cognizance was taken;
  • whether the addition was challenged;
  • whether the alleged property was generated from that offence.

The mere addition of a section number does not conclusively establish its factual ingredients.

What If the Charge Sheet Drops the Scheduled Offence?

The final legal position should be tested through:

  • the original FIR;
  • the final report or charge sheet;
  • supplementary charge sheets;
  • the cognizance order;
  • the charge-framing order;
  • revision or quashing orders.

Where the only scheduled offence has been dropped and the competent court proceeds solely with non-scheduled offences, the foundation of the PMLA case requires close scrutiny.

However, another scheduled offence may survive through:

  • a supplementary charge sheet;
  • a separate FIR;
  • another competent criminal complaint;
  • another accused or transaction linked with the alleged proceeds.

Criminal Conspiracy Under Section 120-B

Criminal conspiracy cannot be used as a universal doorway into PMLA.

The relevant test is:

What offence was the object of the alleged conspiracy?

Where the alleged conspiracy concerns commission of:

  • scheduled cheating;
  • scheduled forgery;
  • corruption;
  • another offence in the PMLA Schedule,

the conspiracy allegation may form part of the scheduled-offence foundation.

Where the alleged conspiracy concerns only a non-scheduled offence, conspiracy does not automatically transform the non-scheduled offence into a PMLA predicate offence.

What Is an ECIR?

ECIR is commonly understood to mean:

Enforcement Case Information Report.

It is an internal record used by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with its PMLA inquiry or investigation.

The expression “ECIR” is not defined in the PMLA.

The Act does not prescribe:

  • a publicly notified ECIR format comparable to an FIR;
  • registration of an ECIR under ordinary police procedure;
  • immediate filing of every ECIR before a Magistrate;
  • public uploading of an ECIR;
  • automatic delivery of an ECIR copy to every person investigated.

ECIR and FIR: Important Differences

Issue Predicate FIR or Complaint ECIR
Purpose Records or institutes the underlying criminal allegation. Internally records the ED money-laundering inquiry.
Legal source BNSS or the applicable special statute. Internal ED process under the PMLA framework.
Offence Scheduled or predicate criminal offence. Inquiry concerning alleged money laundering.
Investigating body Police, CBI or another competent agency. Directorate of Enforcement.
Public statutory format Governed by the relevant criminal procedure. No equivalent statutory format is prescribed in PMLA.
Automatic copy Applicable criminal-procedure rights may require supply to specified persons. No automatic right to an ECIR copy in every case.
Proof of guilt No. No.

Does an ECIR Create the Scheduled Offence?

No.

The legal sequence is not:

ED records ECIR → scheduled offence comes into existence.

The scheduled offence must have an independent legal foundation.

An ECIR cannot by itself:

  • register the predicate crime;
  • add an offence to the PMLA Schedule;
  • prove that property was generated;
  • establish the money trail;
  • prove the accused’s knowledge;
  • establish guilt.

Must ED Supply the ECIR?

The Supreme Court has treated an ECIR as an internal ED document and has not recognised an automatic right to its supply in every case.

This does not mean that an investigated or arrested person has no right to know the case.

Depending upon the stage, relevant information may arise from:

  • the predicate FIR or complaint;
  • Section 50 summons;
  • search and seizure records;
  • freezing or attachment orders;
  • written grounds of arrest;
  • remand application;
  • Section 8 notice;
  • prosecution complaint;
  • documents supplied during court proceedings.

An ECIR copy and written grounds of arrest are legally different documents.

Must the PMLA Accused Be Named in the Predicate FIR?

Not necessarily.

The person accused of money laundering may be different from the person who committed the scheduled offence.

For example:

  1. A scheduled fraud is allegedly committed.
  2. Property is allegedly generated.
  3. Another person later knowingly conceals, possesses, transfers or uses that property.

The later person may face a PMLA allegation even if not named in the original fraud FIR.

However, ED must identify:

  • the scheduled criminal activity;
  • the property generated;
  • the accused’s knowledge;
  • the accused’s actual Section 3 activity;
  • the financial or property connection.

Absence from the predicate FIR remains relevant but is not automatically decisive.

Must the PMLA Accused Be Charge-Sheeted in the Predicate Case?

Not in every factual situation.

A person who knowingly deals with proceeds may be accused under PMLA despite not being prosecuted as the principal offender in the predicate crime.

The prosecution cannot rely solely on:

  • relationship with the scheduled-offence accused;
  • employment in the same company;
  • ownership of a connected account;
  • receipt of an unexplained payment;
  • presence in a message or document.

Person-specific knowledge and involvement should still be demonstrated.

Independent Offence but Dependent Foundation

The PMLA offence is independent because:

  • its ingredients differ from the scheduled offence;
  • its accused persons may differ;
  • the laundering activity may occur later;
  • the scheduled-offence and PMLA trials may proceed independently;
  • the money-laundering court examines the Section 3 conduct.

It remains dependent upon the scheduled-offence foundation because:

  • proceeds of crime must arise from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence;
  • property cannot become proceeds merely because ED considers it suspicious;
  • without proceeds of crime, there can ordinarily be no Section 3 process or activity.

The correct description is:

Independent offence, but not independent of the existence of proceeds derived from scheduled criminal activity.

Commission of a Scheduled Offence Does Not Automatically Prove Money Laundering

A valid predicate FIR is the beginning of the PMLA analysis, not the conclusion.

ED must separately identify:

  • what property was generated;
  • when it was generated;
  • who initially obtained it;
  • how it moved;
  • who controlled or possessed it;
  • how the accused dealt with it;
  • how the property is connected with the scheduled offence.

The existence of a scheduled offence does not automatically make:

  • every bank credit;
  • every business receipt;
  • every family property;
  • every asset of the accused;
  • every payment to a related entity;
  • every unaccounted amount

proceeds of crime.

What If the Predicate FIR Is Quashed?

The operative portion of the quashing order must be read precisely.

Examine:

  • whether the complete FIR was quashed;
  • whether relief was limited to one accused;
  • whether only some offences were quashed;
  • whether another scheduled offence survives;
  • whether another FIR or complaint survives;
  • whether the order has attained finality;
  • whether an appeal or review is pending;
  • whether liberty was granted to institute another proceeding.

Where every scheduled-offence foundation linked to the alleged proceeds has been finally extinguished and no other scheduled offence survives, continuation of the PMLA proceeding becomes legally vulnerable.

What If One of Several Predicate FIRs Is Quashed?

An ECIR may refer to more than one predicate FIR or may develop through investigation involving several scheduled cases.

Prepare a separate matrix for each case.

Predicate Case Scheduled Offence Alleged Proceeds Status Property Linked
FIR / Complaint 1 ________ ________ Quashed / Pending ________
FIR / Complaint 2 ________ ________ Pending / Charge Sheet ________

If one predicate case ends but another valid scheduled case survives, ED may contend that:

  • the ECIR remains partly alive;
  • the investigation survives for the remaining proceeds;
  • only property linked to the extinguished FIR should be excluded.

The defence should require transaction-wise segregation.

What Happens After Discharge?

A discharge order should be examined for:

  • the person discharged;
  • the offences considered;
  • whether every scheduled offence was removed;
  • whether the order is final;
  • whether revision or appeal is pending;
  • whether another predicate proceeding survives.

A person-specific discharge may not automatically terminate the scheduled-offence case against every other accused.

The alleged proceeds and ownership chain must be analysed separately.

What Happens After Acquittal?

A final acquittal in the scheduled offence may have substantial consequences for the PMLA case where the alleged proceeds are entirely dependent upon that extinguished criminal activity.

Relevant questions include:

  • Was the acquittal on merits?
  • Was it limited to one accused?
  • Was every scheduled offence considered?
  • Is an appeal pending?
  • Does another predicate case survive?
  • Is the alleged property claimed through the acquitted person?

No blanket conclusion should be drawn without reviewing the judgment and appellate status.

What Happens After a Closure Report?

A closure report may pass through several stages.

Examine whether:

  • the police merely filed the report;
  • notice was issued to the complainant;
  • a protest petition is pending;
  • the court rejected the closure report;
  • further investigation was ordered;
  • the court finally accepted closure;
  • another FIR or complaint survives.

Filing a closure report and final judicial acceptance of closure are not necessarily the same legal event.

What Happens After Settlement or Compounding?

A private settlement does not automatically erase the predicate case.

Examine:

  • whether the offence is compoundable;
  • whether the competent court permitted compounding;
  • whether the FIR was quashed;
  • the statutory effect of compounding;
  • whether public or third-party rights are involved;
  • whether another scheduled offence survives;
  • whether the alleged proceeds were returned.

A private memorandum or repayment arrangement should not be treated automatically as a final termination of the scheduled offence.

What If the FIR Was Quashed on Technical Grounds?

The operative directions must be read carefully.

A quashing order may:

  • finally terminate the criminal case;
  • grant liberty to file a fresh complaint;
  • quash only proceedings against one person;
  • quash only some offences;
  • preserve investigation concerning other transactions;
  • remain subject to an appeal.

The legal effect on PMLA depends on whether the scheduled criminal foundation was finally removed.

Can One ECIR Cover Several FIRs?

The legal sustainability of combining several predicate cases should be tested through:

  • common transaction;
  • common project or scheme;
  • common proceeds;
  • overlapping accused persons;
  • connected bank accounts;
  • interconnected transactions;
  • Section 23 PMLA allegations;
  • territorial jurisdiction.

The prosecution should not combine unrelated FIRs merely to create a larger proceeds figure.

Each FIR, offence, amount and property should remain identifiable.

What If the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before PMLA Applied?

The chronology should distinguish:

  • date of criminal activity;
  • date the substantive offence entered the PMLA Schedule;
  • date property was generated;
  • date of possession or concealment;
  • date of acquisition or use;
  • date of alleged projection or claiming as untainted.

The prosecution may allege continuing possession, concealment or use after the relevant statutory date.

The defence should not assume either automatic retrospective liability or automatic immunity without reviewing the precise timeline.

Predicate-Offence and ECIR Chronology

Event Date Legal Importance
Alleged criminal activity ________ Identifies the predicate-offence period.
FIR or complaint ________ Establishes the formal scheduled-offence proceeding.
Scheduled offence added or deleted ________ Determines whether a valid Schedule offence survives.
Alleged proceeds generated ________ Tests the causal connection.
ECIR ________ Identifies commencement of the ED case record.
Alleged laundering activity ________ Identifies the Section 3 process.
Charge sheet and cognizance ________ Shows the surviving predicate allegations.
Quashing, discharge or acquittal ________ May affect the PMLA foundation.

Predicate-Case Matrix

Case Agency Offences Scheduled Status Accused Alleged Proceeds Present Status
________ Police / CBI / Other ________ Scheduled / Non-Scheduled ________ ________ ________

Proceeds-of-Crime Foundation Matrix

Scheduled Criminal Act Property Generated Initial Recipient Subsequent Movement PMLA Accused’s Role
________ ________ ________ ________ ________

Potential Grounds of Challenge

  • no offence in the PMLA Schedule;
  • no registered or legally instituted scheduled-offence proceeding;
  • only non-scheduled offences survive;
  • conspiracy does not concern a scheduled offence;
  • scheduled section added without factual ingredients;
  • scheduled section dropped from the charge sheet;
  • no cognizance of any scheduled offence;
  • predicate FIR finally quashed;
  • final discharge or acquittal;
  • accepted closure report;
  • no property generated from the alleged criminal activity;
  • lawful property wrongly treated as proceeds;
  • property predating the scheduled criminal activity;
  • different predicate FIRs and proceeds improperly mixed;
  • ECIR proceeding on a notional assumption;
  • person not shown to know, possess or control the alleged proceeds;
  • scheduled-offence allegations confused with Section 3 activity;
  • no person-specific money trail.

Documents Required for a Complete Legal Review

Predicate-offence documents

  • FIR or CBI RC;
  • criminal complaint;
  • charge sheet;
  • supplementary charge sheets;
  • closure report;
  • protest petition;
  • cognizance order;
  • charge-framing order;
  • discharge order;
  • quashing order;
  • compounding order;
  • acquittal judgment;
  • appeal or revision records.

PMLA documents

  • ECIR reference, where available;
  • Section 50 summons;
  • statements;
  • search panchnama;
  • freezing order;
  • Provisional Attachment Order;
  • Section 8 notice;
  • grounds of arrest;
  • remand application;
  • prosecution complaint;
  • supplementary complaint;
  • Special Court orders.

Transaction documents

  • bank statements;
  • contracts;
  • invoices;
  • property documents;
  • income-tax records;
  • company accounts;
  • source-of-funds evidence;
  • digital communications;
  • valuation and proceeds calculations.

Section 50 Summons and the Predicate-Offence Foundation

A person receiving a Section 50 summons should identify:

  • the ECIR or case reference;
  • the known predicate FIR or complaint;
  • the scheduled offences;
  • the relevant transaction period;
  • the capacity in which the person is summoned;
  • documents required;
  • the alleged proceeds or property;
  • the person’s relationship with the predicate accused.

The summoned person should not:

  • guess the predicate offence;
  • accept an incorrect scheduled-offence description;
  • fabricate transaction records;
  • delete evidence;
  • coordinate false statements;
  • assume that not being named in the FIR removes every risk.

Arrest and Bail Implications

Before or after an arrest under Section 19, the defence should test:

  • whether a valid scheduled offence exists;
  • whether proceeds of crime are identified;
  • whether the person’s Section 3 role is stated;
  • whether the grounds of arrest accurately identify the predicate case;
  • whether the scheduled section survives in the charge sheet;
  • whether another accused has been discharged or acquitted;
  • whether the alleged property has a lawful source;
  • whether the case is documentary;
  • custody and trial progress.

Absence of a valid predicate foundation may become relevant to:

  • legality of arrest;
  • Section 45 satisfaction;
  • prosecution-complaint challenge;
  • constitutional remedies.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a scheduled offence under PMLA?

It is an offence included in Part A, Part B or Part C of the Schedule to the PMLA, subject to the applicable statutory conditions.

Is predicate offence defined in PMLA?

The statutory expression is “scheduled offence.” Predicate offence is a commonly used expression for the underlying crime.

Must a predicate FIR exist before ED proceeds?

There must ordinarily be an actual registered or legally pending scheduled-offence proceeding. This may arise through an FIR, CBI case, competent complaint or another legally recognised criminal proceeding.

Can ED create the predicate offence through an ECIR?

No. The ECIR cannot independently create or substitute the scheduled criminal offence.

Can ED proceed only because it suspects money laundering?

Suspicion may lead to scrutiny, but prosecution cannot rest on a notional scheduled offence without a legally recognised predicate foundation and alleged proceeds.

What is the full form of ECIR?

ECIR is commonly expanded as Enforcement Case Information Report.

Is ECIR defined in PMLA?

No. The expression is not defined in the Act.

Is an ECIR the same as an FIR?

No. An FIR records the predicate criminal allegation under the applicable criminal procedure. An ECIR is an internal ED record concerning the PMLA inquiry.

Must ED supply an ECIR copy?

No automatic right to supply in every case has been recognised. Other documents may disclose the nature of the allegations according to the procedural stage.

Can a person face PMLA proceedings without being named in the predicate FIR?

Potentially, yes, where independent material allegedly shows knowing or actual involvement with proceeds generated from the scheduled offence.

Must the same person commit both offences?

No. The predicate offender and the person alleged to launder the proceeds may be different persons.

Is money laundering independent of the predicate offence?

It is a separate offence with distinct ingredients, but proceeds of crime must still arise from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

Does every scheduled offence automatically create a PMLA case?

No. ED must also identify proceeds of crime and a process or activity connected with those proceeds.

Can Section 120-B alone create PMLA jurisdiction?

Only where the alleged conspiracy concerns commission of an offence contained in the PMLA Schedule.

What if the only scheduled offence is dropped from the charge sheet?

The final report, cognizance order and any supplementary proceeding must be examined. If only non-scheduled offences survive, the PMLA foundation may be challenged.

What if the predicate FIR is quashed?

The complete order must be examined. If every scheduled-offence foundation is finally extinguished and no other scheduled offence survives, the PMLA case becomes legally vulnerable.

What if one FIR is quashed but another survives?

ED may contend that the investigation remains alive for proceeds linked to the surviving scheduled offence. Transaction-wise segregation is necessary.

Does filing of a closure report automatically end PMLA?

Not necessarily. The court’s treatment of the closure report, any protest petition, further investigation and other predicate proceedings must be examined.

Does a settlement automatically end the ECIR?

No. The settlement’s legal effect, compounding, quashing order and survival of other scheduled offences must be examined.

Can property purchased before the alleged predicate offence be proceeds of crime?

Direct derivation from a later offence becomes doubtful, although ED may separately rely upon an equivalent-value theory subject to the statutory conditions.

Can an ECIR be challenged under Article 226?

In an appropriate jurisdictional, constitutional or abuse-of-process case, High Court remedies may be examined, subject to statutory remedies and disputed facts.

Can Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh review the scheduled-offence and ECIR foundation?

Subject to engagement, assistance may include Schedule verification, FIR and complaint analysis, multiple-case mapping, proceeds review, summons preparation, bail, attachment and High Court strategy.

Can quashing, bail or closure be guaranteed?

No. Relief depends upon the complete record, applicable law and judicial determination.

AI Search Quick Answer

A PMLA case ordinarily requires an actual scheduled offence registered or legally pending before a competent forum, property derived or obtained from that scheduled criminal activity and a person-specific process connected with the alleged proceeds.

An ECIR is an internal ED record and is not equivalent to a police FIR. It does not independently create the predicate offence or prove money laundering.

A PMLA accused need not always be named in the predicate FIR, but ED must still establish the scheduled criminal activity, proceeds of crime and that person’s knowing or actual Section 3 role.

Key Takeaway

The legally incomplete position is:

“An ECIR exists, therefore a PMLA offence exists.”

The correct analysis asks:

  • What is the exact scheduled offence?
  • Where is it registered or legally pending?
  • Does it remain alive?
  • What criminal activity occurred?
  • What property was generated?
  • How is the property traced?
  • What process or activity under Section 3 is alleged?
  • What is the individual accused’s knowledge and role?

Conclusion

The scheduled offence is the legal foundation from which the alleged proceeds of crime arise.

The ECIR is an ED investigation record; it is not a substitute for the predicate case and is not proof of guilt.

A complete PMLA analysis must examine:

  • the current Schedule;
  • the FIR, RC or criminal complaint;
  • the charge sheet and cognizance order;
  • the status of quashing, discharge, closure or acquittal;
  • the alleged proceeds;
  • the money trail;
  • the individual Section 3 role.

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh may assist with scheduled-offence verification, ECIR-foundation review, multiple-FIR segregation, proceeds analysis, Section 50 preparation, bail, attachment, Special Court and High Court proceedings.

Consultation and Professional Coordination

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

Focused work: PMLA and Enforcement Directorate proceedings, scheduled-offence analysis, predicate FIRs and complaints, ECIR review, proceeds of crime, Section 50 summons, search, freezing, attachment, arrest, bail and prosecution complaints.

Phone: 8294431232

Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com

Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

Book a legal consultation

Upload the predicate FIR, charge sheet, ED summons and PMLA records

Track consultation status

Outstation disclosure: Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh is based in Patna. Outstation assistance may involve consultation, remote record review, legal research, drafting, briefing and coordination with locally authorised counsel.

Local criminal counsel, Senior Counsel, forensic accountants or an Advocate-on-Record may be separately required.

No assurance of quashing, closure, non-arrest, bail, unfreezing, attachment release, discharge or acquittal is made.

Official Sources

Follow legal updates from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh: Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google