IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that if an accused is acquitted in a predicate offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against them, and the proceedings initiated by the ED in such cases cannot survive.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. - The present petition is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to impugn the order on charge dated 24.04.2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed in CC bearing no. 01/2011 titled as E.D. V Dr. Jeevan Kumar etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the complaint") by the court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under section 4 of PMLA.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that FIR bearing no. 27/2008 was got registered under section 420 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sections 18/19 of The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "TOHO Act") at P.S. Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. The investigation of the abovementioned FIR was entrusted to CBI and consequently, RC/1(E)/08/CBI/EOU-VII/ND was registered under sections 326/342/417/465/473/ 307/506/120B IPC and sections 18/19/20 of TOHO Act by the CBI being the predicate offence. After conclusion of investigation, the final report was filed by the CBI and the trial was conducted by the court of Sh. Najar Singh, ASJ/Special Judge (CBI), Panchkula, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court").

3. The aforesaid RC was premised on an allegation that Dr. Jeevan Kumar, along with others, was involved in illegal racket of kidney transplantation and committed various offences including the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and the offences punishable under sections 18/19/20 of TOHO Act which are scheduled offences under PMLA. It was also alleged that illegal kidney transplantation was the only occupation of Dr. Jeevan Kumar and his entire earnings were from this source only.

3.1 The respondent/ED registered the ECIR bearing no. ECIR/7/DZ/2008 based on the alleged income derived by Dr. Jeevan Kumar from his criminal activity and the co-accused persons including the petitioner have been alleged to have assisted him in projecting it as untainted property.

3.2 The court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi framed the charge for the offence under section 3 of PMLA punishable under section 4 of PMLA against the petitioner vide the impugned order.

4. The trial court acquitted Dr. Jeevan Kumar of all the charges framed against him vide judgment dated 22.03.2013 and the same has not been challenged and has therefore, attained finality.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the co-accused Dr. Jeevan Kumar has been acquitted by the trial court, the present complaint filed by the ED is not maintainable. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary V Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Harish Fabiani and Others V Enforcement Directorate and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3121; judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in Nayati Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. And Others V Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs and Another, W.P.(CRL) 2871/2022, decided on 11.10.2023; in Prakash Industries Ltd. and Another V Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087; in Directorate of Enforcement V Gagandeep Singh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 514 and in Arun Kumar Mishra V Directorate of Enforcement, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8658. The counsel for the petitioner also cited various other judgments in support of his submissions and prayed that the impugned order passed by the court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi be set aside qua the petitioner along with consequential proceedings.

6. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) appearing for the respondent/ED submi