The pendency of a criminal appeal against a conviction for a scheduled offense does not bar the continuation of the PMLA trial: Madras High Court

“In no way can the pendency of a criminal case be an absolute bar to the continuation of the PMLA process currently being conducted by the Special Court for PMLA. Both the process in the Schedule offense case and the process in the PMLA case are different and different and the nature of the offenses is distinguishable“, the court stated.

The bank of Justice SM Subramaniam And Justice AD ​​Maria Clete stated that the offense of money laundering has broader implications and cannot be equated with a criminal offense. The court added that while schedule violation is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under PMLA, once initiated, it becomes independent and needs to be dealt with separately.

“ECIR cannot be equated with FIR. The misdemeanor offense is essential for the initiation of proceedings and the recording of ECIR, but both offenses cannot be placed on the same level. PMLA procedures are different and the said law is a complete code in itself. While planned crimes are tried under other criminal laws. If two documents are different and different in their own nature, no combined reading and implication can be attributed to them.” said the court.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against an order passed by the special judge for PMLA cases allowing postponement of the trial under Section 309 CrPC.

Special public prosecutor N. Ramesh, appearing for the ED, submitted that the right to speedy trial is a constitutional right vested not only in the accused but also in the prosecution and this right cannot be unnecessarily violated by invoking powers under Section 307 CrPC may be violated. He submitted that the investigation into the money laundering case was independent and separate and could not be linked to the pending criminal case.

However, senior advocate MS Krishnan, representing the defendant, questioned the viability of the criminal revision petition. He submitted that the order passed by the Special Judge was an interim order and therefore there was an express option under Section 397(2) CrPC to challenge the same. He also argued that continuing the trial during the pendency of the criminal case would lead to prejudice. He, therefore, argued that the trial had not yet begun as the charge in the money laundering case had not yet been formulated and therefore no prejudice would be caused by postponing the trial.

The court dismissed the challenge on the grounds of feasibility and concluded that the High Court’s powers under section 397(1) were sufficient to entertain the criminal review application against the order. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation has been completed, prima facie findings have been made and the complaint has also been filed. The court took the view that it did not make sense at this point in time to assume that the pendency of an appeal would prevent the continuation of the proceedings.

The court, therefore, held that the trial court had erred in postponing the PMLA trial and it was necessary to interfere with that order. The court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the special court’s order postponing the hearing.

Plaintiff’s lawyer: Mr. N. Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor

Attorney for the defendant: Mr. MSKrishnan Senior Counsel for Mr. Anirudh Krishnan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Case Title: The Deputy Director (PMLA) vs. Ashok Anand

Case No: Crl.RC.No.1262 of 2024