HC Hyderabad (08.09.2022) In M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. [Criminal Revision Case No. 87 of 2021 ] directed the PMLA Court to wait for the decision of the Special Court in the scheduled offence before pronouncing the decision in the money laundering case, though the money laundering trial was allowed to proceed simultaneously:
Excerpts of the Order;
27.2.Thus, Supreme Court has expressed the view that expression proceeds of crime which is the very essence of the offence of money laundering needs to be construed strictly. Only such property which is derived or obtained, .directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can be regarded as proceeds ol' crime. On the above basis Supreme Court has held that in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction either on account of discharge or acquittal or quashing of the criminal carse (scheduled offence), there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or a person claiming through him in relation to the property linked tc the stated scheduled offence. No other view is possible.
36. Thus, on a thorough consideration of all aspects ol the matter, impugned order dated 11.01.2021 is hereby quashed. Further, it is directed that though the trial relating to the offence of money laundering can proceed independent of the trial of scheduled offence, nonetheless as the outcome of the trial for scheduled offence would have a definite bearing on the outcome of the trial for the offence of money laundering, it would be in the interest of justice if the Special Court trying the offence of money laundering while independently proceeding with the trial may however take a pause and await the ultimate pronouncement/decision of the Special Court trying the scheduled offence. Otherwise, as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), it may lead to a paradoxical result if the concerned person is later on acquitted of the scheduled offence while convicted of the offence of money laundering under PMLA at an earlier point of time. This would not only be paradoxical but also contrary to well established tenets of law as well.
---------------------------------------------
