The judgment established that if a person is finally discharged or acquitted of a scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money laundering against him.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Petition No.13439 of 2018 is filed by A1 and Criminal Petition No.2686 of 2021 is filed by A2 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.342 of 2018 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Since both the petitioners are accused in the same case, they are being heard together and disposed by way of this Common Order.

2. Charge sheet was filed against these petitioners and others by the Patancheru Police. According to the prosecution, in respect of purchase of land, the petitioners herein and other accused projected A3 as real owner of a property and entered into an agreement of sale. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs initially on 20.05.2009 and another Rs.45.00 lakhs on 24.06.2009. The police arrested the accused for defrauding the complainant. The accused forging the signatures and thumb impressions of one Shyam Kumar, offered the land for sale and A3 impersonated as the owner Shyam Kumar. Out of the total agreed amount, Rs.85.00 lakhs was paid. The charge against the accused was for impersonation and cheating, having entered into criminal conspiracy and causing wrongful loss to complainant to the extent of Rs 85 lakhs.

3. The parties however entered into compromise and approached the concerned Court. Thereafter, these petitioners were acquitted of the predicate offence.

4. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and others : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the proceedings against these petitioners under PMLA Act have to be quashed. Further Division Bench of this Court had set-aside the attachment of property of the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate would relied on the Judgment of Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal : (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581. Attention was drawn to paras 38 and 39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”

6. He further submits that the said judgment was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case (supra