The offence under Sec. 3 of the PML Act is a stand-alone offence, and the finality of the adjudication proceedings and the discharge of the accused by the trial Court can impact the continuation of criminal proceedings under the PML Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.134/2015 pending on the file of Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as illegal and void ab initio and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the counsel for the petitioners and the Special Counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as 'ED').

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 45(1) of PML Act for the offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PML Act') wherein it is alleged that a FIR has been registered by CBI on 1/10/2011 for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 379, 411, 420, 427, 447, 468, 471 of IPC, Ss. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and Sec. 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 against petitioner No.1 and others. After investigation, the CBI filed the charge-sheet before the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru on 2/8/2013. It is further alleged that the offence under the P.C. Act and other offences are the scheduled offences and therefore, based upon the CBI charge-sheet, the respondent registered a case in ECIR/BGZO/09/2013 on 19/9/2013. The said case was registered based upon the FIR registered by CBI.

4. It is alleged that on behalf of CBI, independent team of surveyors headed by the Chief Surveyor, conducted survey of the area occupied by the petitioner M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (DMSPL). The survey report submitted on 7/12/2012 (item No.80 of Relied Upon Documents in the charge sheet) stated that the team surveyed the area and demarcated the mine area into two blocks i.e. 'A' block and 'C' block. Both these blocks were found extended outside the lease area of DMSPL and they alleged to have illegally extracted the mines from the area which comes to 1.43 crores metric tons and the data was collected. Out of this, around 62 lakhs metric tons were from outside their mining lease area. Based upon the said survey report, the CBI filed charge sheet before the Special Court for CBI Cases on 2/8/2013 for the above said offences. There were public interest litigations before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, during the proceedings, constituted Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine the boundaries of illegal mining in various States including Bellary at Karnataka. The team identified the area encroached by DMSPL about 14.31 Ha. and submitted the report on 3/2/2012.

5. It is further stated that in the writ petition filed in W.P. (C) No.562/2009 (SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA), the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18/4/2013, at paragraph 39, has observed as under:

" 39. We make it clear that we have not understood the above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re-examination by anybody or authority."

6. As per the proceedings of the joint team of CEC dtd. 2/7/2011, the are