ORDER :

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to set aside the rejection order dated 13.09.2021 in Crl. M.P. No. 12726 of 2021 in C.C. No. 37 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, (Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [for brevity “the PML Act”] Chennai, with further direction to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, to take the discharge petition on file and decide the same on merits.

2. The petitioners are facing a prosecution in C.C. No. 37 of 2015 under Section 3 r/w 4 of the PML Act before the Principal Sessions Court, (Special Court for PML Act Cases), Chennai.

3. Earlier, the petitioners filed a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl. O.P. No. 22222 of 2016, for quashing the prosecution against them on various grounds. The said quash petition was heard in detail by a Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 01.02.2021, dismissed the quash petition, the operative portion of which, reads as under:

“11. In view of the reverse burden under Section 24 of the PML Act, we cannot decide this issue in a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In fine, this criminal original petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Liberty to given to the accused to raise all the points before the trial Court after the charges are framed as there are prima facie materials to frame charges. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made in this case. Connected Crl. M.P. are closed.”

4. After the dismissal of the quash petition, the petitioners filed a discharge petition before the trial Court raising certain grounds and the trial Court refused to take the discharge petition on file by impugned order dated 13.09.2021, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard Mr. N. Baaskaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate.

6. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. N. Baaskaran, learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be necessary to briefly state the allegations against the petitioners culled out from the order dated 01.02.2021 that was passed by this Court in the quash petition in Crl. O.P. No. 22222 of 2016:

“2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity “the CBI”) registered a case in Crime No. RCMAI/2011-A/0003 on 12.01.2011 against P. Vijayan and his wife V. Anitha, for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “the PC Act”). After completing the investigation, the CBI filed a final report in C.C. No. 15 of 2014 for the said offence against P. Vijayan and his wife V. Anitha before the Special Court for the CBI Cases, Chennai.

3. It is the case of the CBI that P. Vijayan was the Vice-Chancellor of the Indian Maritime University, Chennai, from 01.03.1995 to 13.01.2011 and he has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that his wife has abetted the said offence.

4. On coming to know of the registration of the case under the PC Act, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in E.C.I.R. No. 09 of 2014 on 31.12.2014 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity “the PML Act”). After completing the investigation, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint in C.C. No. 37 of 2015 in the Principal Sessions Court, (Special Court for PML Act Cases), Chennai, against P. Vijayan and V. Anitha, on the ground that they are projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted money, for quashing which, this petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

7. Mr. N. Baaskaran, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harish Dahiya @ Harish and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 69, even if a quash petition is dismissed, a discharge petition could be maintained.

8. We carefully perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Har