Court refuses to drop ED case against alleged drug trafficker despite discharge in predicate offences

Special judge RB Rote said the scheduled offences still exist as the FIRs registered by Mumbai police have not been quashed

MUMBAI: A special PMLA court has refused to drop the money laundering case against alleged drug trafficker Ali Asgar Shirazi , ruling that the proceedings can continue despite his discharge from the predicate offences, as appeals against those orders are pending before the Bombay High Court.

Court refuses to drop ED case against alleged drug trafficker despite discharge in predicate offences

Special judge RB Rote said the scheduled offences still exist as the FIRs registered by Mumbai police have not been quashed. The court also noted that both the Mumbai police crime branch and the ED have challenged Shirazi’s discharge in the predicate offences before the high court.

“There is no acquittal of all the accused in the predicate offence. There is no discharge of all the accused in the predicate offence. The proceeding of predicate offence has not been quashed by the Competent Court in its entirety,” Rote said, adding that “the scheduled offence is in existence and pending for adjudication of the serious offence of drug trafficking.”

The ED case is based on two FIRs lodged in 2023 at JJ Marg and Jogeshwari police stations over alleged trafficking of psychotropic medicines to the United States and the United Kingdom.

Shirazi told the court that he had been discharged in one predicate case in December 2024 and in the second in March 2025. He argued that once the scheduled offences no longer survived against him, the money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should also be dropped.

The ED opposed the plea, arguing that money laundering is a separate offence and citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in the Pavana Dibbur case (2023) which ruled that an accused in a PMLA case need not be named in the predicate offence.

The agency further argued that money laundering is an independent offence and claimed its investigation had revealed that Shirazi and its probe found that Shirazi, his wife and others allegedly floated shell companies without any genuine business activity to launder proceeds of crime amounting to ₹44.5 crore.

Accepting the ED’s submissions, the court held that money laundering is “a separate offence, distinct from the scheduled offence.”

The judge also noted that the prosecution had placed sufficient prima facie material on record, including witness statements, account details, income tax returns and evidence of money trails, to show Shirazi’s alleged involvement in money laundering activities.