Offence Under PMLA Is Standalone, Can't Have Joint Trial With Predicate Offence Even If Both Are Before Same Court: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has clarified that the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is distinct and different from the trial of the predicate offence and thus the accused cannot seek for a simultaneous or joint trial even if both are pending before the same court. A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that since the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for trial are different, there was no question of joint or simultaneous trial. The court also added that there was no impediment for the special court to continue the trial even if the trial for a predicate offence was pending. “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,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition by M Venkatesan seeking directions to the Principal Sessions Judge Puducherry to conduct simultaneous trial of the predicate case and the PMLA case in which Venkatesan was named. The predicate offence was launched by the Anti Corruption Branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Since the Principal Sessions Judge was the designated Special Court for PMLA and CBI cases, the present petition was moved. Venkatesan submitted that if the PMLA trial was completed during the pendency of the predicate offence, there was a possibility that his rights would be prejudiced. It was contended that the right to fair trial was a basic right which needed to be protected. The Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the PMLA trial was distinct from the trial in predicate offence and the same has been upheld by a number of judgments. He pointed out that once the complaint has been registered under the provisions of PMLA, it becomes stand alone process and the Special Court need not be dependent on the predicate offence. The court noted that as per Explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PMLA, the jurisdiction of the Special Court, while dealing with the offence under the Act shall 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 shall not be construed as joint trial. Thus, the court held that the Special Court was competent and had jurisdiction to conduct separate trials under both PMLA and predicate offence, even if both were before the same court or different court."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," it further said. The court said that 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. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v, Union of India & others (2022) the high court said, "Thus pendency of the predicate offence is not a bar for continuing the trial under the PMLA by the Special Court. It is not dependent on the predicate offence, after filing of the complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA Act and it becomes stand alone process as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (cited supra). The completion of trial in PMLA Case is independent, since, nature of offence and the procedures contemplated are distinct and different". The court was thus not inclined to grant the relief claimed by Venkatesan and dismissed his petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.Thilageswaran Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ranjish Pathiyil Spl. P.P. for enforcement, Mr.K.Srinivasan, Spl.PP for CBI cases Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 488 Case Title: M Venkatesan v Directorate of Enforcement Case No: Crl.OP.No.7578 of 2023Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Offence Under PMLA Is Standalone, Can't Have Joint Trial With Predicate Offence Even If Both Are Before Same Court: Madras HC

Upasana Sajeev

Tags