The jurisdiction of the Special Court to try a person under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the predicate offence, and the trial under the PML Act should not be stalled until the predicate offence is determined.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.11 of 2017 pending on the file of the XII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases (Special Court for Prevention of Money-Laundering Act Cases), Chennai and direct the same to be adjourned or kept in abeyance till the disposal of C.C.No.3982 of 2015 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore (Special Court for CCB and CB-CID Cases), Allikulam, Chennai.)

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. The minimum facts that are required for deciding this quash petition are as under:

* On a complaint lodged by one V.Ayyadurai, the CCB registered an FIR in Crime No.374 of 2007 on 20.07.2007 against one Rajkumar and others, for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 read with 47 and 120-B IPC.

* After completing the investigation, the CCB filed a final report (charge sheet) on 24.11.2015 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB and CB-CID Cases, Chennai, against Rajkumar (A-1/petitioner herein) and six others, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 465 IPC.

* It is the case of the CCB that Rajkumar was working as an Auditor in Madras Madurai Properties Pvt. Ltd. (in short “MMPPL”); Rajkumar along with the co-accused viz., Ramaiya Chettiar, represented to MMPPL that the property in door No.58/59, survey No.915, Hunters Road, measuring around 10 grounds, belongs to Ramaiya Chettiar that the same is for sale, to substantiate which, fabricated documents were given, on the strength of which, MMPPL purchased the said 10 grounds land for Rs.4,79,60,000/- and thereafter, they came to know that the title documents were fabricated ones and the said land belongs to the Government.

* On registration of the FIR, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR.No.1 of 2008 on 25.01.2008 and after the CCB filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.3982 of 2015 on 24.11.2015, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint in C.C.No.11 of 2017 in the Special Court for PMLA Cases, Chennai, on 25.04.2017, against one Subramanian and Rajkumar, for the offences under Section 45(1) read with Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the PML Act”).

* Under such circumstances, Rajkumar has filed the instant criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

“To call for the records in C.C.No.11 of 2017 pending on the file of the XII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases (Special Court for PML Act Cases), Chennai and direct the same to be adjourned or kept in abeyance, till the disposal of C.C.No.3982 of 2015 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Special Court for CCB and CB-CID Cases), Allikulam, Chennai.”

2. Heard Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel for Rajkumar and Mr.S.Sasikumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.

3. Mr.Mohan strenuously took this Court through the meaning of the word “crime” in Black’s Law Dictionary and submitted that until it is proved in the police case that Rajkumar has committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, can he be prosecuted under the PML Act. He placed strong reliance on Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, in this regard.

4. There is a fundamental fallacy in the above submission of Mr.B.Mohan, in that, for invoking Article 20(2), ibid., it must be first shown that the accused was tried or convicted of an offence and if he is being tried for the same offence again, only then, he can seek the protection of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) ibid. (See State of Mizoram Vs. C.Sangnghina [(2019) 13 SCC 335]). In anticipation of a conviction in the police case, the accused cannot seek to stall the PML Act trial, by invoking Article 20(2), ibid. Even according to Mr.Mohan, the trial in C.C.No.3982 of 2015 has not even begun and so, there is no question of pleading double jeopardy.

5. Mr.Moh