Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Rajeev Ranjan Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. The petitioners in the abovementioned 6 revisions are co-accused in a single case, bearing Case No. 357 of 2022 in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/C.B.I. Court No. 3, Lucknow, arising out of ECIR/05/LKZO/2017 (New Case No.) and ECIR/PMLA/VSZO/2011 (Old case No.) under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) and all the revisions have been filed against separate similar orders dated 25.04.2023 passed by the trial Court rejecting separate applications for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioners. All the revisions involve common questions and, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Bhatt, the learned for the revisionist and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement.
3. It has been stated in the revisions that the same arise out of a case registered under an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Number 10503 (M/B) of 2009. Initially the case was investigated by S.I.T. of U. P. Police, but later it was transferred to C.B.I.
Money laundering is an independent offence separate from the scheduled offence, and the threshold for cash transactions does not determine liability for money laundering.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings are independent of the predicate offence and must proceed without delay, reflecting the urgency in addressing economic crimes.
Money-laundering is a continuing offence, so long as tainted property is enjoyed, possessed, orprojected as untainted.
The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent of any pending trial for the predicate offence, as affirmed by the court.
Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are independent and can be based on continuing laundering activities, regardless of the scheduled offence's date of commission.
The extent of exercise of discretion by Court is limited to prima facie satisfaction of Court and if Court does not find reasonable grounds of suspicion against the Accused, it may discharge him of o....
Discharge denied in PMLA case as scheduled offences pending via protest petitions/remand; prima facie case from money trail suffices at discharge without mini-trial; beneficial ownership extends liab....
Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not sustainable without a registered scheduled offence, as established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
