Point of Law: Section 3 is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

ORDER :

Both these petitions are preferred by accused 1 to 5 in Special C.C.No.303 of 2018 calling in question order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore framing charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 3 punishable under Sections 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short). Since the petitions arise out of a common order and common proceedings, they are taken up together and considered in this order.

2. Heard Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:-

On the intervening night between 14th and 15th of May, 2008, accused 1 and 2 are said to have involved in the commission of murder of one Rajesh and one Ramu while injuring few others in a farm house belonging to one Muddappa situated behind APMC in Hunsur. A crime was registered in Crime No.108 of 2008 and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against accused 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 307, 449, 201, 427, 143, 144, 147 and 302 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge after a full blown trial convicted accused 1 and 2. The said conviction was called in question before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2016. This Court by its judgment dated 14-08-2018 acquitted accused 1 and 2 of the aforesaid crime on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt of accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt as eye witnesses and several other material witnesses had turned hostile. This Court held that the Sessions Court had wrongly read the evidence and had not considered the legal aspect involved in the case. Judgment and order of conviction of the Sessions Judge was set aside and accused 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2016, a complaint came to be registered against all the five accused on 03-05-2018 under Section 45(1) of the Act for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Act by the respondent in ECIR No.06/BGZO/2017. On filing of the complaint/charge sheet against the petitioners, it is registered as Special C.C.No.303 of 2018 on 21.05.2018. Thereafter, the complaint was entertained and a case was registered during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal.

4. During the pendency of the impugned proceedings, the judgment of the Division Bench of acquittal comes about on 14-08-2018. After the order of acquittal, the concerned Court frames charges against all the accused-petitioners in both these cases. It is the order of framing of charge that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Kiran S. Javali appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioners having been acquitted of the predicate offences made under the IPC and the crime so linked to those offences under the Act cannot be laid against them as if there is no scheduled offence under the Act. He would submit that entire proceedings which are initiated are necessarily to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent-Enforcement Directorate Sri Madhukar Deshpande would refute the submissions to contend that this very submission is considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DYANI ANTONY PAUL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA – W.P.No.38642 of 2016 & connected cases decided on 11-12-2020 and held that notwithstanding acquittal in a predicate offence, the proceedings for commission of offences that are scheduled under the Act can be permitted to go on, as they are independent. Proceeds of crime would be an independent proceeding notwithstanding the crime itself b