Point of Law: Section 44 of PMLA clarifies that notwithstanding anything in CrPC, any scheduled offence and an offence punishable under Section 4 of PMLA are to be tried by the Special Court having territorial jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly ‘CrPC’ hereinafter) seeking a correction in the appropriate procedure to be followed while conducting enquiry and trial of offences classified as “scheduled offences” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (briefly, “PMLA” hereinafter) and the “consequential offences” under PMLA. Related prayer made is for quashing order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad in S.C.No.2 of 2016.

3. It is stated that petitioner has been accused of committing offences under Sections 420, 471 and 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as per charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in C.C.No.10 of 2012 pending on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The matter is at the stage of framing of charge.

4. While at that stage, categorizing Sections 420, 471 and 120B IPC as “scheduled offences” under PMLA and in furtherance of the allegation that petitioner had committed the consequential offence of “money laundering”, respondent has filed complaint before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (briefly, “Special Court” hereinafter) in S.C.No.2 of 2016.

5. Both C.C.No.10 of 2012 and S.C.No.2 of 2016 filed by the respondent are being heard on the discharge applications filed by the petitioner.

6. According to the petitioner, after arguments in the discharge petitions commenced in C.C.No.10 of 2012, S.C.No.2 of 2016 was posted before the Special Court to hear the petitioner in S.C.No.2 of 2016. Petitioner has stated that it was brought to the notice of the Special Court that the offence of money laundering being preceded by the predicate/ scheduled offence, unless the predicate/scheduled offence is heard earlier or simultaneously with the offence of money laundering, trial in money laundering case may be vitiated and may violate the right of the petitioner to a fair trial. However, respondent contended that money laundering being a standalone offence, the enquiry or trial in S.C.No.2 of 2016 along with C.C.No.10 of 2012 need not be done simultaneously; rather enquiry and trial in S.C.No.2 of 2016 may precede the enquiry and trial in C.C.No.10 of 2012.

7. Special Court passed order dated 11.01.2021 in S.C.No.2 of 2016 holding that the enquiry and trial in S.C.No.2 of 2016 is not in any manner dependant on C.C.No.10 of 2012. Therefore, it shall precede the trial in C.C.No.10 of 2012.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy appearing for the petitioner has referred to the order of the Special Court dated 11.01.2021 and submits that Special Court was not justified in holding that the offence of money laundering is a standalone offence and shall precede the trial of predicate/scheduled offence. He has referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in Madhu Koneru v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2021 SCCOnLineTS 646, more particularly to paragraph 22 thereof, to contend that once the charge sheet in respect of scheduled offences is quashed, there cannot exist anymore scheduled offence for the purpose of prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. He has also referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court dated 10.08.2021 passed in Crl.P.No.1073 of 2021 and batch and submits that reason given in the said order that offence of money laundering is a standalone offence; is independent of the scheduled offence; and consequently it can proceed independently of the trial for the scheduled offence is not based on sound logic. Submitting that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in criminal proceedings, he contends