2018 (10) TMI 1013 - AT - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - no appeal against the acquittal order was filed by the State - Held that - Both the husband and wife were also arrayed as respondent in the PMLA complaint which was pending before the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, who by Order dated 10th August, 2018, has allowed the application filed by them under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code and both were discharged from the offence punishable under Section 3, read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Thus, there is no need to go into the merit of the case. Once the main accused in the schedule offence as well as the complaint under the PMLA has been discharged and the said final judgement has not been challenged by the respondent in the higher court, the appeals are liable to be allowed. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.09.2016 with regard to the above mentioned two appeals are set-aside. Consequently, the provisional attachment order is also quashed. The properties attached are released forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
1. Acquittal of main accused in schedule offence and its impact on related PMLA complaint.
2. Discharge of husband and wife from the offence under PMLA.
3. Finality of judgement and lack of appeal against acquittal order.
4. Decision on appeals and provisional attachment order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the situation where the main accused in a schedule offence has been acquitted, leading to implications on the related Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) complaint. The Special Judge acquitted the main accused, and it was noted that the judgement had attained finality as no appeal was filed against it by the State. The wife of the main accused was also involved in the PMLA complaint.

2. Both the husband and wife were discharged from the offence punishable under Section 3, read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, by the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge. This discharge led to the conclusion that there was no need to delve into the merits of the case further, given the acquittal of the main accused and the discharge of the husband and wife from the PMLA offence.

3. The judgement highlights the importance of the finality of the acquittal order and the lack of challenge by the respondent in a higher court. Since the main accused had been discharged in the schedule offence and the PMLA complaint, and the final judgement was unchallenged, the appeals were deemed liable to be allowed.

4. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 regarding the appeals was set aside. This decision led to the quashing of the provisional attachment order, and the properties that were attached were ordered to be released immediately. The judgement effectively resolved the legal implications arising from the acquittal and discharge of the accused individuals in the schedule offence and the PMLA complaint.