Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioner in Criminal Petition Nos.1073 and 1074 of 2021 is M/s.Jagati Publications Limited. It is challenging the order of even date, dated 11.01.2021, passed in S.C.Nos.1 of 2016 and 2 of 2017 passed by the Court below, whereby, the Court below held that offence under The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PML Act') is a stand-alone offence and shall precede the trial of predicate/scheduled offence. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1076 of 2021 is Sri V.Vijay Sai Reddy. He is challenging the order, dated 11.01.2021, passed in S.C.No.2 of 2018, by the Court below, whereby, the Court below held that the offence under PML Act is a stand-alone offence and shall precede the trial of predicate/scheduled offence. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1077 of 2021 is M/s.Jagati Publications Limited. It is challenging the order, dated 11.01.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2020 in S.C.No.1 of 2016 by the Court below, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 362 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court below to take up the hearing on charges in scheduled offence, i.e., C.C.No.9/2012 before S.C.No.1/2016, was dismissed. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1079 of 2021 is Sri V.Vijay Sai Reddy. He is challenging the order, dated 11.01.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1414 of 2020 in S.C.No.2 of 2016 by the Court below, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 362 Cr.P.C. requesting 3 Dr.SA, J Crl.P.No.1073/2021 & batch the Court below to take up the hearing on charges in scheduled offence, i.e., C.C.No.10/2012 before S.C.No.2/2016, was dismissed. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1080 of 2021 is Sri V.Vijay Sai Reddy. He is challenging the order, dated 11.01.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1412 of 2020 in S.C.No.1 of 2016 by the Court below, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 362 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court below to take up the hearing on charges in scheduled offence, i.e., C.C.No.9/2012 before S.C.No.1/2016, was dismissed. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3119 of 2021 is M/s.Caramel Asia Holdings Pvt Ltd. It is challenging the order, dated 11.01.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1421 of 2020 in S.C.No.2 of 2018 by the Court below, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 362 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court below to take up the hearing on charges in scheduled offence, i.e., C.C.No.27/2013 before S.C.No.2/2018, was dismissed. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2021 is M/s.Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited. The prayer in the said Criminal Revision Case is to call for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.1416 of 2020 in S.C.No.2 of 2017, on the file of the Court below and set aside the common order, dated 11.01.2021, passed by the Court below and direct the Court below to hold simultaneous trial of scheduled offences and offences under PML Act or in the alternative, in immediate succession with the trial of scheduled offences preceding the trial of offences under PML Act in terms of Section 44(1) of PML Act.

5. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the Criminal Petitions would contend that the impugned orders are contrary to law and settled legal position. The 4 Dr.SA, J Crl.P.No.1073/2021 & batch Court below erred in holding that the offence under PML Act is a stand-alone offence, which is not inextricably linked to predicate/scheduled offences. Proceeding with the trial of offences under PML Act without proving the guilt of the accused under the predicate/scheduled offence at the first instance is impermissible, since it amounts to presumption that the accused are guilty of predicate/scheduled offences, which is gross violation of cardinal principle of criminal law that 'an accused is deemed to be innocent unless guilt is proved'. Drawing attention of this Court to Sections 3 and 4 of PML Act, the learned senior counsel submitted that whosoever directly or indirectly indulged themselves in any process or activity connected with the 'proceeds of crime' and projecting it as untainted property can be held to be guilty for an offence under Section 3, which is punishable under Section 4 of PML Act. 'Proceeds of crime', as per definition given in Section 2(1)(u) of PML Act, means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by a person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Thus, the offence under Section 3 of PML Act is dependent upon the offences under the scheduled offences in Indian Penal code. In other words, if the offences under the Indian Penal Code which have been declared as scheduled offences are not established, one cannot determine the proceeds of crime and therefore, unless proceeds of crime is established by putting the accused on trial, any prosecution of the person under PML Act would be premature and would be futile exercise. Though the PML Act is silent as to whether trial of predicate/scheduled offences must precede the trial of offence under PML Act, or vice-versa, or both the offences are to be tried simultaneously, but the procedure which appears to be absurd is to 5 Dr.SA, J Crl.P.No.1073/2021 & batch be discarded and the procedure which would fulfill the aim and object of the PML Act, which is a special legislation, is to be adopted. The Court below completely missed the distinction between the concept of stand-alone offence and the sequence of trying different stand-alone offences. Merely because the offences under PML Act are held to be stand-alone offences, it cannot be held that those offences can be tried regardless of the consequences of scheduled offences. In comparable legislations and offences, Courts have consistently held that the consequential offences must await or must be tried along with the predicate/scheduled offences. A person who is not at all arrayed as an accused in a scheduled offence or even if he is acquitted of the scheduled offences, he can still be prosecuted under PML Act. In the scheduled offences, if all the accused are acquitted, it is deemed that no crime is committed by them and hence, none of them can be convicted under PML Act. Unless and until a predicate/scheduled offence exists, there is no money laundering offence. Predicate/scheduled offence is foundation and offence under PML Act is the structure/framework thereon. If foundation is removed, then the structure/framework standing thereon would fall. Money laundering offence starts at the end of predicate offence. Money laundering offence necessarily depends upon the predicate/scheduled offence. The ideal way is that the predicate/scheduled offence has to be tried at the first instance, or there can be simultaneous trial of predicate/scheduled offences and offences under PML Act. If it is accepted that the offence under PML Act is a stand-alone offence, the very scope of Section 44(1)(a) & (c) of PML Act, which prescribes jurisdiction and committal of cases relating to scheduled offences, gets defeated. Further, Under Section 6 Dr.SA, J Crl.P.No.1073/2021 & batch 44(1)(d) of PML Act, a Special Court, while trying the scheduled offence or the offences under PML Act, shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is applied to a trial before a Court of Session. The Explanation to the said section contemplates that the Special Court, during investigation, enquiry or trial under the PML Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offences. It contemplates orders already passed in respect of the scheduled offence, but not orders to be passed in future. Trial of predicate/scheduled offences and offences under PML Act shall not be construed as a joint trial, but they can be taken up simultaneously. The orders under challenge are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside and ultimately prayed to allow all the Criminal Petitions as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel had relied on the following decisions.

20. Another question that requires determination in the instant cases is whether the trial of offences under PML Act can go on without commencement of trial of predicate/scheduled offences. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on as many as 11 decisions cited supra, but a perusal of the impugned order reveals that most of said citations were also cited before the Court below and the Court below, having examined the said citations, did not pass any order for conducting simultaneous trial of offence under PML Act and predicate/scheduled offences or stalling the commencement of trial in the offence under PML Act.

21 Dr.SA, J Crl.P.No.1073/2021 & batch However, a perusal of the said citations makes it clear that those citations do not relate to commencement of trial in these category of cases. They were decided on different points and as such, those citations have no direct bearing over the points that require determination in these cases.

21. Further, it is needless to state that oral and documentary evidence is the backbone to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal trial. The trial in all criminal cases including money laundering offences is required to be conducted expeditiously. If the trial is delayed, it would result in impairment of the complainant to prove the case and also impairment of ability of the accused himself to defend his case. The factors like death, disappearance and non-availability of witnesses would also hamper the criminal administration of justice. Therefore, invariably, oral and documentary evidence is required to be placed on record expeditiously, to arrive at a just conclusion. Therefore, it is too early to say that the accused persons are likely to get acquittal in the scheduled offences. There are instances where conviction was recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court had set aside the said conviction. In the instant case, mere apprehension that the Court below is going to record conviction against the accused persons under PML Act and they are likely to get acquittal in the predicate/scheduled offences would not be a ground to stall the proceedings. In the given facts and 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 22 Dr.SA, J Crl.P.No.1073/2021 & batch 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 unsustainable.