Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By invoking this Court's inherent jurisdiction, the legality of the proceeding vis-a-vis Criminal Misc. Case (PMLA) No.40 of 2017 set in motion in terms of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the PMLA') for commission of offence under Section 3 thereof pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PMLA Act), Khurda at Bhubaneswar is sought to be challenged at the behest of the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that the same is not sustainable in law.

2. According to the petitioner, the schedule offence in relation to the impugned proceeding under Section of the 3 of the PMLA Act which was initiated against him was quashed by this Court in CRLREV No.596 of 2018 vide judgment dated 27th March, 2019, whereafter, he approached the PMLA court for closure of the prosecution in view of such quashing of the proceeding in connection with T.R. No.35 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack, however, the same was rejected by order dated 23rd October, 2019 on the ground that the offence under Section 3 of PMLA is a distinct offence in respect of which cognizance has already been taken earlier. The petitioner pleads that when the Vigilance proceeding vis-à-vis the schedule offence was quashed in CRLREV Debendra Kumar Panda Vrs. Union of India and Others No.596 of 2018 attributing no role played by him in the distribution of coal allegedly to the non-existent or non-functional or fake functional MSMEs, nothing was left to sustain a prosecution under Section 3 of the PMLA Act.

6. By filing a counter affidavit, the opposite parties sought to justify the prosecution under the PMLA. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the ED submits that the PMLA is enacted to prevent money laundering and to pave the way for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto which is in consonance with the International obligations under the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations to curve the illicit activities of money laundering and the said Act has been amended from time to time in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2019 to obviate the difficulties in its due implementation. It is further contended that the PMLA is a special law which contemplates distinct procedure and also provides initiation of prosecution in order to achieve the object of the law which cannot be equated with the regular criminal prosecution and such an action under the said Act cannot have any implication or impact on the outcome of other cases registered under the general law. So the essence of the argument of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the ED is that offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act is independent and it has only a reference to the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence which has wider connotation and it may extend to any person who is connected with the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence not necessarily an offender of the said offence and in the aforesaid background, any money laundering is a standalone offence under the PMLA and notwithstanding the quashing of the Vigilance proceeding in CRLREV No.596 of 2018, the prosecution under the Special Act shall continue. While contending so Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the ED refers to Explanation appended to Section 44 of the PMLA Act which was introduced by the Legislature vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 (23 of 2019) and submits that it was brought into force with a purpose to clarify and remove doubts vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Special Court Debendra Kumar Panda Vrs. Union of India and Others dealing with such offences not to be dependent on any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offences clarifying that the trial for both sets of offences by the same court not be construed as joint trial. So the contention that when the offence of money laundering is a distinct and independent offence, irrespective of quashing of the Vigilance prosecution, the complaint which is filed under Section 45 of the PMLA shall remain. While advancing such an argument, Mr.Nayak, learned counsel for the ED cited the following decisions, such as, Smt. Janata Jha and Another Vrs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2014 Crl.LJ 2006; Radha Mohan Lakhotia Vrs. Deputy Director, PMLA, Directorate of Enforcement 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1116; VGN Developers Private Limited and Others Vrs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement AIR Online 2019 Mad 844; and Babulal Verma and Another Vrs. Enforcement Directorate and Another decided in Criminal Application Nos.201 and 974 of 2021. It is contended that in Smt. Janata Jha (supra), this Court declined to quash the proceeding while considering a similar question with the conclusion that the ambit and scope of trial under the PMLA is totally different from that of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the former, the onus rests on the accused to prove that the properties seized are not tainted and not the proceeds of the crime. In VGN Developers Private Limited (supra), the Madras High Court held that the PMLA is a self-contained law and the offence registered thereunder can standalone independent of the predicate offence. A similar view has been expressed in Babulal Verma (supra) to the effect that offence under the PMLA registered on the basis of a scheduled offence stands on its own and does not require support of predicate/scheduled offence even if such an offence is compounded or results in acquittal or the proceeding is quashed, inasmuch as, investigation by ED under the said Act is not in any way affected or ceased to continue or wiped off. So the argument of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the ED is based on and heavily relying upon the decisions referred to above.

8. The PMLA Act was brought into force in the year 2005 to prevent money laundering and to provide mechanism to deal with the proceeds of the crime and matters related thereto. In terms of Section Debendra Kumar Panda Vrs. Union of India and Others 3 of the PMLA Act, for an offence of money laundering to be made out, a person ought to have attempted to indulge directly or indirectly or knowingly assisted or has been a party to any such activity connected with the proceeds with the crime including its possession, concealment, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The expression 'proceeds of crime' is defined in Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA Act to mean any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside India, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. Further, the scheduled offences include such offences as specified in Part A, B & C of the Schedule to the PMLA. Considering the challenge in the present case, question would arise whether an offence of money laundering could still breathe and survive dehors a scheduled offence?