IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PMLA is an independent sui generis Act, and the complainant is required to prove the case independently, without presuming the derivation of proceeds of crime from a schedule offense.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records relating to the judgment made in C.C.No.4 of 2016, dated 13.12.2017, on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, and to set aside the same and allow the appeal.)

1. Appeal against the dismissal of the complaint preferred by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai. The complaint against the respondents initiated under Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ''the PMLA''] for the offence of money-laundering as defined under Section 3 of the said Act, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act, ended in acquittal, hence, this appeal.

2. Facts leading to the appeal is capsulated as under:

2.1. During the years 2007 - 2008, the first respondent G.Varadarajan [A1] was the Sub-Postmaster at Vedasandhur Post Office, Dindigul Division. At that time, one Thimmaraya Perumal [A2] was the Postal Assistant. The second respondent Murugesan [A3] was the Postal Assistant. The third respondent S.Karthika [A5] was the Mahila Pradhan Khestriya Bachat Yojna Agent [in short ''MPKBY'']. The fourth respondent S.Shanmugam is the father of the third respondent.

2.2. Based on source information, a case was registered by the CBI, ACB, Chennai, on 24.02.2009 regarding falsification of accounts, forgery and cheating to a tune of about Rs.1.27 Crores, from the Post Office Savings Scheme Account by misusing the password and manipulating the data. On completion of investigation, final report was filed by D.S.P., CBI-SPE: ACB, Chennai, against Thimarayaperumal, Varadarajan, Murugesan and Karthika, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was taken cognizance in C.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. Pending trial, Thimaraya Perumal died on 03.10.2010. Hence, the charge against him got abated.

2.3. Meanwhile, the offences for which the above case was tried being offences mentioned in the Schedule to the PMLA and the properties derived or obtained from the above said offence being the proceeds of crime as per Section 2 (u) of the PMLA. The Enforcement Directorate having information that using the proceeds in the above crime, the third accused through the fourth accused had attempted to be converted the tainted property into untainted property, the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR.No.23 of 2011 and proceeded with investigation. After recording the statement of witnesses, the appellant laid complaint against the respondents 1 to 4 for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 8(5) of the PMLA.

2.4. Simultaneously, the Enforcement Directorate also initiated adjudicating proceedings against third and fourth respondents for attachment of the property purchased from the proceeds of the crime, which is the subject matter of the predicated offence pending in C.C.No.6 of 2010. The adjudicating authority, vide order dated 26.02.2013, confirmed the provisional attachment of the property made by the complainant, vide provisional Attachment Order No.11 of 2012, dated 05.10.2012, on condition that the same shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before the Court or under corresponding law of any other country, before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be, and shall become final after the order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) or section (8) or section 58-B or sub-section (2A) of Section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority.

2.5. The appellant's complaint initiated under the PMLA was taken on file in C.C.No.4 of 2016 by the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai. Charges under Section 3 r/w 4 of PMLA was framed against respondents