IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that possession of proceeds of crime is sufficient for PMLA action, and the Act's provisions are independent and overriding over other laws.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of order in Crl.MP.No.4022/2021 in C.C.No.58/2018, dated 10.06.2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, set-aside the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

Under assail is the Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.MP.No.4022/2021 in C.C.No.58/2018.

2. Petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., has been instituted before the Sessions Court at Chennai in C.C.No.58/2018 seeking relief to discharge the petitioners/Accused from the offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA').

3. The Sessions Court rejected the petition, which resulted in institution of the present criminal revision petition.

4. Mr.M.Muruganantham, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the predicate offence allegedly committed by the petitioners was under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They were prosecuted for the offence for possessing disproportionate wealth. The disproportionate wealth in the predicate offence was acquired between the period from 22.10.2007 and 17.06.2010. Admittedly, the petitioners were convicted in the criminal case on 30.06.2016 in C.C.No.22 of 2012 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The suspension of sentence has been granted.

5. When the facts stand as it is, the respondent herein initiated action under PMLA through ECIR No.18/2016 dated 05.12.2018.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would urge that the disproportionate wealth accumulated as per the predicate offence was Rs.8,70,429/- as per the trial Court and Rs.7,00,429/- as per this Court and during the relevant point of time, the ceiling of Rs.30,00,000/- was contemplated for invoking PMLA. Since the amount of disproportionate wealth possessed by the petitioners is lesser than that of the ceiling fixed under the Act, the very initiation is per se is invalid. Secondly, it is contended that the amendment and insertion of Act 2 of 2013 with effect from 15.02.2013 cannot have retrospective effect, so as to include the disproportionate assets accumulated in between the years 2007 and 2010. On that score also the initiation of action under PMLA becomes invalid. Thirdly, it is contended that the petitioners were convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing disproportionate wealth and for the same offence, the PMLA has been invoked. Therefore, it is hit by the principles of double jeopardy and thus unconstitutional.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on para.270 of Vijay Madanlal case reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929. The three Judges bench of the Apex Court in unequivocal terms reiterated that such actions in the absence of establishing proceeds of crime are untenable. Therefore, the Trial Court has not considered these aspects while dealing with the discharge petition. Thus, the revision petition is to be allowed.

8. Mr.P.Rajnish Pathiyil, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would strenuously oppose by stating that the trial court has elaborately considered all these grounds. Prevention of Corruption Act and invocation of PMLA by the respondent cannot be compared with. The predicate offences though under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the petitioners were convicted, the petitioners continued to possess the proceeds of crime, which resulted in initiation of action under PMLA. So long as a person possess the proceeds of crime and PMLA being a Central Act, there is no impediment for the Enforcement Directorate to register case and prosecute the persons, who continued to possess the proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA.

9. Regarding the ceiling of Rs.30,00,000/- , the learned Special Public Prosecutor would reply by stating that the amendment came into