Delhi High Court: In a revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to set aside the impugned order dated 24-04-2012, Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.*, opined that the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) and the consequential proceedings could not survive. The Court opined that considering that the petitioner had been acquitted by the Trial Court, and that the said judgement had not been challenged till date, there could be no offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) against the petitioner, and accordingly, set aside the impugned order along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Background
In an instant case, the FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (‘the TOHO Act’). Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to CBI and consequently, the RC was registered under Sections 326, 342, 417, 465, 473, 307, 506 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the TOHO Act by the CBI. After conclusion of the investigation, final report was filed by the CBI and trial was conducted by the Court of Special Judge, Panchkula, Haryana (‘the Trial Court’). However, vide judgement dated 22-03-2013, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner of all the charges framed against him and since, the same had not been challenged, therefore, it had attained finality.
The registered RC was premised on an allegation that the petitioner along with others, was involved in illegal racket of kidney transplantation and committed various offences including the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the TOHO Act, which were the scheduled offences under the PMLA. It was also alleged that illegal kidney transplantation was the only occupation of the petitioner, and his earnings were from this source only. Thus, ED registered the Enforcement Case Information Report, based on the allegations that the income derived by the petitioner was from his criminal activity and the co-accused persons were alleged to have assisted the petitioner in projecting it as an untainted property.
The Court of District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘the PMLA Court’) vide order dated 24-04-2022, framed the charge for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against the petitioner vide the impugned order.
The petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had been acquitted by the Trial Court, the complaint filed by the ED was not maintainable. Whereas the respondent contended that considering that the co-accused had been acquitted in respect of the predicate offence, the impugned order could not be set aside. The respondent further stated that issue whether proceedings under the PMLA would survive upon the acquittal or discharge of the accused in a scheduled offence was still pending in a case before the Supreme Court and submitted that the present petition should be adjourned sine die till the decision of the Supreme Court on this issue.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140, and opined that the present complaint filed by the ED and the consequential proceedings could not survive. The Court opined that considering that the petitioner had been acquitted by the Trial Court, and that the said judgement had not been challenged till date, there could be no offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA against the petitioner, and accordingly, set aside the impugned order along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The Court further stated that ED should be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for the revival of the present complaint along with the consequential proceedings in case of altered circumstances or in view of the final decision in the pending case in the Supreme Court.
[Dr. Jeevan Kumar v. Prabhakant, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 276, decided on 15-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC
