A person acquitted in a predicate offense cannot face money laundering charges related to that offense.

JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2.The respondents herein along with 4 others were implicated as accused in Crime No.140 of 2013 on the file of the Inspector of Police, M.Kallupatti Police Station. The said case arose under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985. Following the registration of the said predicate office, Enforcement Directorate / appellant herein registered ECIR No.MDS/ZO/04 of 2014 against the respondents herein. Subsequently, Enforcement Directorate laid complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act , 2002 and the same was taken cognizance by the Special Court in C.C.No.5 of 2016. In the meanwhile, NDPS case (predicate offence) registered against the respondents herein culminated in C.C.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court for NDPS cases, Madurai.

After full trial, it ended in acquittal on 01.08.2017.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents categorically states that till date no appeal has been filed questioning the acquittal in the predicate offence. In view of the acquittal of the respondents in the predicate offence, Enforcement Directorate's complaint in C.C.No.5 of 2016 also ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 20.12.2017. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

4.The issue raised in this appeal is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1 had held that in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money-laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This has been consistently followed in the subsequent cases including in the decision reported in (2023) 5 SCC 91 ( Pavana Dibbur Vs Directorate of Enforcement ).

Therefore, interference with the impugned judgment is not warranted.

5.This Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

[G.R.S., J.] [R.P., J.]

23.01.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA To II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and R.POORNIMA, J.

MGA Crl.A(MD)No.337 of 2018

23.01.2025