ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.233 of 2018 registered for offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PMLA’ for short).

2. Heard Sri N. R. Krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.748 of 2025, Sri V. Lakshmi Kanth Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.14216 of 2024 and Sri Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent in both these petitions.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

3.1. The petitioners stood as accused in a predicate offence, which was tried as Spl.C.C.No.123 of 2020. The offence alleged against these petitioners sprang in the aftermath of demonetization. i.e., on 08-11-2016 when the petitioners are said to have exchanged the old notes to new notes for a premium. The facts led to the registration of a crime in Crime No.148 of 2016 against these petitioners and the crime resulted in a trial in Spl.C.C.No.123 of 2020 and the trial resulted in their conviction. The petitioners have preferred an appeal against the conviction. The same is pending adjudication before the concerned Court. Simultaneously, on the predicate offence being registered in Crime No.148 of 2016, the Enforcement Directorate had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report-ECIR No.BGZO/05/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, which comes to be registered as Spl.C.C.No.233 of 2018.

3.2. The petitioners, in these petitions, after getting convicted in Spl.C.C.No.123 of 2020, have challenged the continuance of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.233 of 2018 before this Court, on the score that it amounts to double jeopardy. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 30-12-2024, accepting the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.14216 of 2024 that it does amount to double jeopardy, grants an interim order of stay by the following order:

“Registry to show the name of the counsel Sri Madukar Deshpande, the standing counsel for respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was once convicted in Special Case No.123/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 120B, 483B, 212, and 314 of Indian Penal Code.

It is his further submission that in the same proceeding charges were framed under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

It is his further submission that once the charges are framed under the said Act, and if the trial was not conducted in respect of any of the charges and trial is concluded in respect of other offences, the accused cannot be tried again for the offences for which charges are already framed and trial was not conducted. He would refer to Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code to substantiate his contention.

This Court has considered the contentions and perused the records.

This Court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out to grant interim relief.

Hence, the following:

Further proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.233/2018 pending on the file of the XXXII ACC & SJ & SPL Judge for CBI cases at Bengaluru CCH-34 is stayed till the next date of hearing.

List on 23.01.2025.”

The said order is in subsistence even today.

3.3. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent - Enforcement Directorate, submits that once the petitioner gets convicted in the proceedings qua the predicate offence there cannot be an interim order interdicting the proceedings under the PMLA. Therefore, the matter is taken up.

4. The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in unison would submit that the proceedings under the PMLA after the conviction amounts to double jeopardy on the score that Section 300 of the Cr.P.C prohibits second trial on the same offences. Learned counsel Sri N. R. Krishnappa appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.748 of 2025 would seek to place reli