TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Dr. Shameem Akther, J.
Mr. V. Vijay Sai Reddy – Petitioner
versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.1073, 1074, 1076, 1077, 1079, 1080 and 3119 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Case No.83 of 2021
Decided on 10.8.2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Offence of money laundering is a stand-alone offence and trial proceedings are completely different to that of scheduled offence. Trial of money laundering offence is independent trial and it is governed by its own provisions, it will not meddle with trial of scheduled offence.
(2) Even if predicate/scheduled offence is compromised, compounded, quashed or accused therein is/are acquitted, investigation under PML Act does not get affected, ceased or wiped out. It may continue till Enforcement Directorate concludes investigation.
(3) Oral and documentary evidence is required to be placed on record expeditiously, to arrive at a just conclusion.
(4) To invoke provisions of Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., there has to be a well-founded error.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 2(1)(u), 3 and 44(1) – Trial of offence of money laundering – Trial of money laundering offence is independent trial and it is governed by its own provisions and it need not get interfered with trial of scheduled offence – PML Act, being a special enactment, contemplates a distinct procedure at initial stage and thereafter provides for initiation of prosecution, in order to achieve special purpose envisaged under the Act – As such, it cannot be construed that proceedings under PML Act are to be equated with prosecution initiated under criminal proceedings for predicate/scheduled offences – Initiation of action under PML Act cannot have any implication or impact in respect of registration of other cases, either under Indian Penal Code or any other penal laws – Offence of money laundering contemplated under Section 3 of PML Act is an independent offence – Even in case of a person who is initially not booked for a scheduled offence but booked later, and subsequently acquitted of said scheduled offence, still such person can be proceeded under PML Act – It is not necessary that a person has to be prosecuted under PML Act, only in event of such person having committed scheduled offence – Prosecution can be independently initiated under PML Act only for offence of money laundering. (Paras 7 and 12)

(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 2(1)(u), 3 and 44(1) – Trial of offence of money laundering – For initiating or setting criminal law in motion under PML Act, requirement is prior registration of a crime under predicate/scheduled offence – Once an offence under PML Act is registered on the basis of a predicate/scheduled offence, then it stands on its own and it does not require support of predicate/scheduled offence – As per scheme of PML Act, it does not depend upon ultimate result of predicate/scheduled offence – Even if predicate/scheduled offence is compromised, compounded, quashed or accused therein is/are acquitted, investigation under PML Act does not get affected, ceased or wiped out – It may continue till Enforcement Directorate concludes investigation and either files complaint or closure report before Special Court. PML Act is a special statute enacted with a specific object to track and investigate cases of money-laundering. (Para 17)

(C) Administration of Justice – Speedy Trial – Oral and documentary evidence is backbone to prove guilt or innocence of accused in a criminal trial – Trial in all criminal cases including money laundering offences is required to be conducted expeditiously – If trial is delayed, it would result in impairment of complainant to prove case and also impairment of ability of accused himself to defend his case – Factors like death, disappearance and non-availability of witnesses would also hamper criminal administration of justice – Oral and documentary evidence is required to be placed on record expeditiously, to arrive at a just conclusion. (Para 21)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397, 401 and 482 – Inherent and Revisional Jurisdiction – Though powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are very wide, those powers are required to be exercised sparingly and with abundant caution – Inherent power can be exercised only when there is abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice – Object of Revisional Jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law – To invoke provisions of Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., there has to be a well-founded error – It may not be appropriate for this Court to scrutinize orders, which, on face of them, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law – Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, findings recorded are based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely – Revisional Court has to confine itself to legality and propriety of findings of subordinate Court and as to whether subordinate Court acted within its jurisdiction. (Para 22)

Result: Criminal Petitions and Criminal Revision case dismissed.