9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joint trial would not arise at all. That apart, the accused in a PMLA offence cannot be allowed to make any attempt to stall the trial on economic offences, since the procedures contemplated are independent. Thus it is not inclined to consider the present petition. Conclusion - The PMLA is a standalone process, and its trial is independent of the predicate offence. Simultaneous trials are not mandatory and are at the discretion of the prosecuting authority. The criminal original petition is dismissed. - Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam And Honourable Mr. Justice M. Jothiraman For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Thilageswaran For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjish Pathiyil Spl. P.P. for enforcement R1., Mr. K. Srinivasan, Spl. PP for CBI cases R2. ORDER S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J The case on hand has been instituted under Section 482 of Cr.PC to direct the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Court for PMLA and CBI cases, Puducherry to conduct simultaneous trial of cases in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2016 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Puducherry and Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019 pending on the file of the same Court. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy of the trial in predicate offence. 8. In support, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied the case of R.Subramanian v. CBI and another reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 6993 wherein the Court made the following observation :- 23. No doubt, the offence of money laundering is inextricably linked with the scheduled offence and thereby, it would be the ultimate interest of the Prosecution to see that charges for the predicate offence/scheduled offence are proved so as to bring the amounts involved in the cases for the predicate offence, within the ambit of the definition of proceeds crime . That is the reason the wisdom of the legislature have given the option to the Department to seek for a joint trial rather than to give the option to the accused, so that the delay may not be caused in the trial of the offence for the predicate offence. 24. Further, this Court is also of the view that allowing the trial to be continued in the CBI Court will not cause any prejudice to the Petitioner/A1. In fact, if the relief as sought for by the Petitioner/A1 is granted, serious prejudice would not only cause to the Prosecution, but also to the Petitioner/A1. That apart, even in the case of CB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case, it is difficult to state the result of the case of predicate/scheduled offence and its bearing over the proceedings or decision rendered in the subject offence under PML Act. Therefore, the contention raised that without proving the guilt of the accused in predicate/scheduled offences, trial of offences under PML Act cannot be proceeded with, is unsustainable. In view of the above observations, it cannot be held that unless proceeds of crime are established by putting the accused on trial, any prosecution of the person under PML Act would be premature and would be futile exercise. Since the offence under PML Act is a stand-alone offence and not dependent on predicate/scheduled offences, it can be proceeded with independently without awaiting the outcome of result of scheduled offences or commencement of trial in the predicate/scheduled offences. Further, there is no requirement under law to conduct trials of both category of cases simultaneously. Therefore, the contention that Money Laundering offence starts at the end of predicate offence and commencement of trial in offence under PML Act shall not precede trial of predicate/scheduled offence, is unsu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces as scheduled offence for the purposes of offence of money-laundering, more so even offences which have no trans-border implications and are compoundable between the parties. The classification or grouping of offences for treating the same as relevant for constituting offence of money-laundering is a matter of legislative policy. The Parliament in its wisdom has regarded the property derived or obtained as a result of specified criminal activity, being an offence under the concerned legislation mentioned in the Schedule. The fact that some of the offences may be non-cognizable offences under the concerned legislation or regarded as minor and compoundable offences, yet, the Parliament in its wisdom having perceived the cumulative effect of the process or activity concerning the proceeds of crime generated from such criminal activities as being likely to pose threat to the economic stability, sovereignty and integrity of the country and thus, grouped them together for reckoning it as an offence of money-laundering, is a matter of legislative policy. It is not open to the Court to have a second guess at such a policy. 455. Needless to underscore that the 2002 Act is intended to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court, there can be no offence of money laundering. 19. For further clarity, it is sufficient to refer one paragraph in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case as paginated in MANU/SC/0924/2022MANU/SC/0924/2022 : 2022 Livelaw (SC) 633, which gives quietus to the said argument:- ''175A. Needless to underscore that the 2002 Act is intended to initiate action in respect of money-laundering activity which necessarily is associated with the property derived or obtained by any person, directly or indirectly, as a result of specified criminal activity. The prosecution under this Act is not in relation to the criminal activity per se but limited to property derived or obtained from specified criminal activity. Resultantly, the inclusion of criminal activity which has been regarded as non-cognizable, compoundable or minor offence under the concerned legislation, should have no bearing to answer the matter in issue. In that, the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence and the persons involved in the commission of such offence are grouped together as offenders under this Act. ...'' 13. With reference to the arguments as advanced between the parties Section 44 of PM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffences by the same Court shall not be construed as joint trial. 16. Therefore, the Special Court is competent and having jurisdiction to conduct separate trials both under PMLA case and for predicate offence, if it happens to be a same Special Court or even in case, the predicate offence is pending before any other Court. The Special Court dealing with the PMLA offence has got jurisdiction to conduct trial irrespective of the fact, whether the predicate offence is pending or otherwise. Thus pendency of the predicate offence is not a bar for continuing the trial under the PMLA by the Special Court. 17. It is not dependent on the predicate offence, after filing of the complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA Act and it becomes stand alone process as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (cited supra). The completion of trial in PMLA Case is independent, since, nature of offence and the procedures contemplated are distinct and different. 18. Since, the nature of money laundering offence is distinguishable and unconnected with the nature of offences under the IPC (presently BNS), one is not dependant on the other and that being the position, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
