Accused In A PMLA Offence Cannot Be Allowed To Stall Trial On Economic Offences: Madras HC Dismisses Plea To Conduct Simultaneous Trial Of PMLA & CBI Cases
The Madras High Court has dismissed a Petition filed to conduct simultaneous trial of PMLA and CBI offences while observing that an Accused in a PMLA offence cannot be allowed to make any attempt to stall the trial on economic offence since the procedures contemplated are independent.
The Accused argued that his right to a fair trial needed protection, claiming that his conviction in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) case may not give him a fair opportunity in the trial of the predicate IPC offence. However, the Court clarified that money laundering offences are “distinguishable and unconnected” from IPC offences, leaving no impediment for the Special Court to continue the trial under PMLA even during the pendency of the trial under predicate offence.
A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman held, “The present petition before us has been instituted under Section 482 of Cr.PC for a direction to the Special Court to conduct simultaneous trial. When the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for trial are distinct and different, question of conducting simultaneous or joint trial would not arise at all. That apart, the accused in a PMLA offence cannot be allowed to make any attempt to stall the trial on economic offences, since the procedures contemplated are independent. Thus we are not inclined to consider the present petition.”
Advocate K. Thilageswaran appeared for the Petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutors Ranjish Pathiyil and K. Srinivasan represented the Respondents.
The Accused had filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for conducting the trial of PMLA and CBI cases simultaneously pending on the file of the Special Court for CBI Cases and for PMLA cases (both were pending in the same Court).
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) submitted that the trial in PMLA was distinct from the trial in the predicate IPC offence. They argued that a PMLA trial is not dependent on the predicate offence. Thus, it was submitted that there’s no bar for conducting a PMLA trial, during the pendency of the trial in predicate offence.
The High Court referred to Section 44 of the PMLA which in unequivocal terms clarified the jurisdiction of the Special Court, while dealing with the offence under PMLA during trial will not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the Scheduled offence, and the trial in both the sets of offences by the same Court cannot be construed as joint trial.
“Therefore, the Special Court is competent and having jurisdiction to conduct separate trials both under PMLA case and for predicate offence, if it happens to be a same Special Court or even in case, the predicate offence is pending before any other Court. The Special Court dealing with the PMLA offence has got jurisdiction to conduct trial irrespective of the fact, whether the predicate offence is pending or otherwise. Thus pendency of the predicate offence is not a bar for continuing the trial under the PMLA by the Special Court,” it observed.
The Bench clarified that the completion of the trial in the PMLA Case is independent, since, the nature of the offence and the procedures contemplated are distinct and different.
Consequently, the Court held, “Since, the nature of money laundering offence is distinguishable and unconnected with the nature of offences under the IPC (presently BNS), one is not dependant on the other and that being the position, there is no impediment for the Special Court to continue the trial under PMLA even during the pendency of the trial under predicate offence.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: M. Venkatesan v. The Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate K.Thilageswaran
Respondents: Special Public Prosecutors Ranjish Pathiyil and K.Srinivasan