The pendency of a criminal appeal does not bar proceeding with the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as the PMLA proceedings are independent and distinct from other penal proceedings.

ORDER :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4236 of 2023 in Special CC.No.02 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (under PMLA Act) at Puducherry.

2. The Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement is the revision petitioner and the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. to postpone the commencement of trial in Special C.C.No.02 of 2022. The Trial Court relying on the Judgements in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 929 and the subsequent cases allowed the petition, which provided a cause for the Enforcement Directorate to institute the present revision petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

3. Mr.M.S.Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would mainly contend that the Criminal Revision Petition is not maintainable and beyond the scope of Section 3 97 (2) of Cr.P.C. He would urge the Court that the order impugned cannot be construed as final order and the trial alone is postponed pending disposal of the criminal appeal filed by the respondent against the order of conviction passed in the predicate/schedule offences.

4. It is not in dispute between the parties that the predicate offence registered against the respondent ended with an order of conviction and an appeal preferred is still pending. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, if PMLA case is tried, there is likelihood of causing prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the trial court considered the fact that the predicate offence and the PMLA offence are inter-linked and in the event of an acquittal, there is possibility of exonerating the respondent from the PMLA proceedings and under those surmises, the petition filed under Section 309 was allowed.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order under challenge is an interlocutory order and there is an express bar under Sub Section (2) to Section 3 97 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected in limine. Secondly, he would contend that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA is dependent on the schedule offence and once in the schedule offence the accused is acquitted as per the legal position laid down in Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary's case as cited supra, the accused in the PMLA is entitled for an acquittal. Therefore, proceeding with the trial during the pendency of the criminal appeal would cause prejudice to the interest of the respondent, who is the accused in the PMLA case. Thus, the trial court is right in allowing the petition. That apart, postponement of trial under PMLA, would cause no prejudice to the Enforcement Directorate.

6. In support of the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the Judgment in the Case of Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

7. In the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 , the Apex Court made an observation that trial means determined all issues adjudging the guilt or the innocence of a person, the person has to be aware of what is the case against him and it is only at the stage of framing of the charges that the Court informs him of the same, the "trial" commen