JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rizwan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 10.03.2022 in ECIR No.ECIR/02/HIU/2018, under Sections 3, 4 & 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station - Directorate of Enforcement, APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case by the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as "E.D.") inasmuch as no case is made out against the accused-applicant under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the PMLA"), which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA specifically posits that whosoever 'directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the definition of 'proceeds of crime' is provided under Section 2 (u) of the Act which means "any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the nature of any such property".

6. Therefore, the commission of the scheduled/predicate offence by way of which ''any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly is a mandatory requirement for a 'property' to become 'proceeds of crime'. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has referred para-251 of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, which is being reproduced herein below:-

"251. The "proceeds of crime" being the core of the ingredients constituting the offence of money-laundering, that expression needs to be construed strictly. In that, all properties recovered or attached by the investigating agency in connection with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under the general law cannot be regarded as proceeds of crime. There may be cases where the property involved in the commission of scheduled offence attached by the investigating agency dealing with that offence, cannot be wholly or partly regarded as proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act -- so long as the whole or some portion of the property has been derived or obtained by any person "as a result of" criminal activity relating to the stated scheduled offence. To be proceeds of crime, therefore, the property must be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, "as a result of" criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. To put it differently, the vehicle used in commission of scheduled offence may be attached as property in the concerned case (crime), it may still not be proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. Similarly, possession of unaccounted property acquired by legal means may be actionable for tax violation and yet, will not be regarded as proceeds of crime unless the concerned tax legislation prescribes such violation as an offence and such offence is included in the Schedule of the 2002 Act. For being regarded as proceeds of crime, the property associated with the scheduled offence must have been derived or obtained by a person "as a result of" criminal activity relating to the concerned scheduled offence. This distinction must be borne in mind while reckoning any property referred to in the scheduled offence as proceeds of crime for the purpose of the 2002 Act. Dealing with proceeds of crime by way of any process or activit