The Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows for independent trials, and simultaneous trials for PMLA and predicate offences are not mandated by law.

ORDER :

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J]

Prayer:-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge/Special Court for PMLA and CBI cases, Puducherry to conduct simultaneous trial of cases in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Puducherry and Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge for PMLA cases, Puducherry (both are pending in the same Court).

The case on hand has been instituted under Section 482 of Cr.PC to direct the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Court for PMLA and CBI cases, Puducherry to conduct simultaneous trial of cases in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2016 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases, Puducherry and Spl.CC.No.1 of 2019 pending on the file of the same Court.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an accused both in the scheduled offence as well as under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (herein after referred to as PMLA).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.Thilageswaran would submit that in the event of completion of trial in PMLA case during the pendency of the predicate offence, the rights of the accused will be prejudiced. Therefore, the present petition is filed seeking simultaneous trial, both in PMLA case and in predicate offence registered under IPC.

4. To support the said proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the following judgments.

5. In the case of Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance V. G.Varadharajan reported in Manu/TN1222/2024 this Court made an observation as follows :

“16. We also find that the appellant/complainant had not made any attempt to invoke Section 44(1) of the PMLA as explained under the Statute. Since the predicate offence has also been pending in the same Court, the appellant/complainant ought to have asked for simultaneous trial in both the cases to avoid conflicting verdict and to avoid omission in marshalling evidence. For the reasons best known, they had allowed the PMLA case to proceed first and while doing so, also failed to place all the material documents though available to substantiate the fundamental requirement to proceed under the PMLA.”

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the right to fair trial to an accused is a basic right, which needs to be protected. Presuming that trial in PMLA case ended in conviction, the petitioner may not get fair opportunity in the trial in predicate offence. There is a possibility of contradiction which may result in causing prejudice to the interest of an accused for fair trial, thus, simultaneous trial must be conducted.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent would also rely on line of judgments to show that the trial in PMLA is distinct from trial in predicate offence. The issue has been considered in several cases and the Courts have held that once complaint has been registered under the provisions of PMLA, it becomes stand alone process and there is no impediment for the Special Court to proceed with the PMLA trial. The PMLA trial is not dependant on the predicate offence. Thus there is no bar for conducting PMLA trial, during the pendency of the trial in predicate offence.

8. In support, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied the case of R.Subramanian v. CBI and another reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 6993 wherein the Court made the following observation :-

“23. No doubt, the offence of money laundering is inextricably linked with the scheduled offence and thereby, it would be the ultimate interest of the Prosecution to see that charges for the predicate offence/scheduled offence are proved so as to bring the amounts involved in the cases for the predicate offence, within the ambit of the definition of ‘proceeds crime”. That is the reason the wisdom of the legislature ha