Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Cannot Be An Absolute Bar For Proceeding With PMLA Trial: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court observed that the pendency of a criminal appeal cannot be an absolute bar for proceeding with the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) trial.
The Court observed thus in a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the order of the Special Judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice A.D. Maria Clete said, “In any angle, pendency of a criminal appeal cannot be an absolute bar for proceeding with the PMLA trial, which is now being undertaken by the Special Court for PMLA. Both the trial in the schedule offence and the trial in the PMLA case are distinct and different and the nature of offences are distinguishable.”
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) N. Ramesh appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Advocate M.S. Krishnan appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, under assail was the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (under PMLA Act) at Puducherry. The Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement was the revision petitioner and the respondent filed a petition under Section 309 of CrPC to postpone the commencement of trial.
The Trial Court allowed the petition, which provided a cause for the Enforcement Directorate to institute the revision petition. The senior counsel for the respondent contended that the revision petition is not maintainable and beyond the scope of Section 397(2) of CrPC. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order cannot be construed as final order.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “In the present case, PMLA proceedings are set in motion and prima facie findings have already made, investigation completed and complaint was filed. The Court has to frame charges and proceed with the trial. At this stage, it is not a viable ground to take a view that pendency of criminal appeal against an order of conviction is a bar for the continuance of trial with reference to offence under PMLA.”
The Court emphasised that the wider implications and ramifications of the offence of money laundering cannot be equated with the offence under the other penal laws and the objective of PMLA is to protect the economic status of our country.
“… we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has committed an error in postponement of PMLA trial during the pendency of the criminal appeal. The same claim may be made by the convicted persons on the ground that they have a right of further appeal to the Supreme Court and considering all these facts, we are inclined to interfere with the order impugned”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the impugned order.
Cause Title- The Assistant Director (PMLA) v. Ashok Anand
Appearance:
Petitioner: SPP N. Ramesh
Respondent: Senior Advocate M.S. Krishnan and Advocate Anirudh Krishnan.
