2021 (2) TMI 1353 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - cheating the complainant - accused entered into an amicable settlement - offences under Sections 419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC - Section 45(1) r/w 3 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - HELD THAT - The complete answer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is available in the recent amendments to Sections 3 and 44 of the PML Act vide Act No. 23 of 2019. The amendment clearly states that a prosecution under the PML Act can proceed notwithstanding the result of the prosecution under the predicate offence. That apart the amendment also clarifies that the date of commission of the predicate offence is not relevant and that if a person projects the proceeds of crime as untainted it is a continuing offence. Hence the arguments fail. However the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that a direction may be issued to the trial Court to complete the trial in a time bound manner. This criminal original petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the appearance and cooperation of the petitioners/accused before the trial Court.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 51 of 2016 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The criminal original petition sought to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 51 of 2016 related to a case registered for offenses under Sections 419 and 420 r/w 34 IPC against multiple accused, including the petitioners, by the police. The Enforcement Directorate later initiated a separate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) in E.C.I.R. No. 2 of 2013 against the petitioners, leading to a complaint in C.C. No. 51 of 2016. The petitioners challenged this prosecution under the PML Act, citing the inclusion of Section 420 IPC as a scheduled offense in the PML Act post the alleged predicate offense period.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that a previous case related to the same matter had been quashed due to an amicable settlement, and the inclusion of Section 420 IPC in the PML Act post the alleged offense period should render the current prosecution invalid. However, the Special Public Prosecutor contended against these arguments. The judgment highlighted recent amendments to the PML Act through Act No. 23 of 2019, emphasizing that a prosecution under the PML Act can proceed independently of the outcome of the predicate offense prosecution. The amendments clarified that the date of the predicate offense is irrelevant, and projecting proceeds of crime as untainted constitutes a continuing offense, thereby dismissing the petitioners' arguments.

While dismissing the criminal original petition, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial in C.C. No. 51 of 2016 within six months from the date of the order, provided the petitioners/accused cooperate and appear before the trial court. This decision ensures the continuation of the trial under the PML Act, emphasizing the independence of such proceedings from the predicate offense prosecution outcomes and the need for timely trial completion.