2023 (5) TMI 1029 - HC - PMLA

Money Laundering - existence of scheduled offences or not - no accused persons shown in FIR - Petitioners contend that since no scheduled offences were alleged against them and even though more than a year had elapsed after filing the prosecution complaint against them, no summons could be issued to the Petitioners under the PMLA - HELD THAT:- In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the context of attachment of property, held that it is only such property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. Therefore, the Authorities under the PLMA 2002 cannot act against any person for money laundering on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional Police or pending inquiry/trial, including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding express language of the definition clause "proceeds of crime", as it obtains now.

Based upon Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, a case is made out for a grant of relief to the Petitioners now that it is clear that there is no prosecution against the Petitioners for any scheduled offence under the PMLA 2002. Based upon the communication dated 20/4/2023, addressed by the Crime Branch to the Enforcement Directorate, no case is made to dismiss these Petitions or defer hearings therein - As and when investigations are completed, and further, if the Petitioners are implicated for their involvement in any of the scheduled offences, the Respondent will have the liberty to seek revival of the PMLA proceedings by taking appropriate steps. However, based on the communication dated 20/4/2023, no case has been made to deny relief to the Petitioners.

The Division Bench found that a 'C' summary report had been filed regards the scheduled offences. The Division Bench relied upon State of Maharashtra vs. Bhimrao Vithal Jadhav [1974 (9) TMI 137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it had been observed that granting of a 'C' summary amounts to an acquittal. After quoting from Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the Division Bench concluded that if a person is discharged or acquitted of a scheduled offence by a competent Court, there could be no offence of money laundering against him. Finally, the Division Bench held that since no scheduled offence was alleged against the Petitioner because of the closure report filed by the Police, the impugned FIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate would not survive, and the said ECIR would have to be quashed, and set aside.

Petition allowed.