The main legal point established is that the offence under PMLA is distinct and concerns only with the proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity in relation to a scheduled offence. The Court clarified the procedure for cognizance by the Special Court and rejected the argument of double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.3172 of 2022 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Under PMLA) at Puducherry, consequently discharge the petitioner herein. Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the order of issuance of summon dated 11.04.2022 issued as against the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Under PMLA) at Puducherry.)

Common Order

Sunder Mohan, J.

1. Both the captioned petitions arise out of the same proceedings filed by the petitioner and hence, they are taken up together and a common order

2. Crl.R.C.No.1956 of 2023, has been filed challenging the order dated 10.08.2023, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner before learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Under PMLA) at Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.3172 of 2022 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2022.

3. Crl.O.P.No.26258 of 2023, has been filed challenging the order of summons dated 11.04.2022 issued against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Under PMLA) at Puducherry.

4. The petitioner is facing trial before the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Under PMLA) at Puducherry under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA').

5. (i) The allegation in the complaint against the petitioner, as extracted in the order passed by the learned trial Judge, is that the petitioner was working as a Superintending Engineer in PWD (Pondicherry); that he was charged for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'), for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.3,75,30,221.11p during the check period from 01.01.1997 to 07.01.2006; that he was tried in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2008 for the said offence and found guilty of possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,74,36,839/-; that since the petitioner by committing the said crime had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.1,74,36,839/- and projected and claimed the same as untainted property, he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 3 of PMLA.

(ii) The petitioner filed the discharge petition before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3172 of 2022 stating that the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, became a scheduled offence only in the year 2009 and therefore, even if he had accumulated wealth by the commission of the said offence before 2009, it cannot be treated as proceeds of crime, to invoke Section 3 of the PMLA.

(iii) The trial Court dismissed the discharge petition by observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudary and others vs. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCCOnline SC 929, held that the offence under the PMLA is a distinct offence and it concerns only with the proceeds of crime which had been derived as a result of the criminal activity in relation to a scheduled offence. Therefore, the possession of proceeds of a crime is still an offence and therefore, is not hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

6. (i) Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary's case (cited supra), he may not be able to persuade this Court to accept the point that since the offence committed by him became a scheduled offence later, he cannot be prosecuted under PMLA. However, he would submit that since a review petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to review the judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary's case (cited supra), and in view of the judgment o