Simultaneous Prosecution Under PMLA, UAPA Not Double Jeopardy: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Emphasizing that the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and independent from offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that simultaneous prosecution under both laws does not amount to double jeopardy.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“These offences are clearly distinguishable from the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the petitioners have been subjected to double jeopardy by initiating prosecution against them under the provisions of the PMLA”.These observations were made while deciding two writ petitions challenging the proceedings under PMLA initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that they were facing simultaneous prosecution for the same set of facts under both the PMLA and the UAPA.At the outset, the bench clarified that the protection from double jeopardy is against being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Since the offences under the UAPA and the PMLA are different in nature, the court held that the principle of double jeopardy wasn't applicable in this case.Addressing the petitioners' argument that the offences under the UAPA were included in the Schedule to the PMLA after the alleged activities had taken place, the court said that even if the predicate offence occurred before its inclusion in the Schedule, a person could still be prosecuted for money laundering based on their involvement with the proceeds of such a crime.Citing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others, the court observed ,“…Even if a criminal activity has been committed before the same had been notified as a Scheduled offence for the purpose of the PLMA, still then if a person has indulged in orcontinues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as Scheduled offence, the said person is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of money-laundering”.It thus held,“Therefore, merely because the predicate offence in the instant case dates back to a period when such offence was not incorporated in the Schedule to the PLMA, it cannot be stated that that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the PMLA”.Based on these considerations the bench found the petition devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed the same.Case Title: IRSHAD AHMAD QURESHI & ANR Vs. STATE OF J&K & OTHERSCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 223Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Simultaneous Prosecution Under PMLA, UAPA Not Double Jeopardy: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Simultaneous Prosecution Under PMLA, UAPA Not Double Jeopardy: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers