Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction In Schedule Offence Not Bar For Proceeding With PMLA Trial: Madras High Court

“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,” the court observed.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the offence of money laundering had wider ramifications and could not be equated with offence under penal laws. The court added that though schedule offence is a prerequisite for initiation of proceedings under PMLA, once initiated it became independent and had to be dealt with separately.

“ECIR cannot be equated with FIR. The schedule offence is quintessential for initiation of proceedings and recording of ECIR but both the offences cannot be placed on the same footing. PMLA proceedings are distinct and the said Act is a complete code in itself. Whereas scheduled offences are tried under other penal laws. When two documents are difference and distinct in their own nature, a combined reading and implication cannot be adduced to them,” the court said.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against an order made by the Special Judge for PMLA Cases allowing the postponement of trial under Section 309 CrPC.

Special Public Prosecutor N Ramesh, appearing for the ED contended that the right to speedy trial was a constitutional right available not just to the accused but to the prosecution as well and such right could not be infringed unnecessarily by invoking powers under Section 307 CrPC. He submitted that the investigation in the money laundering case was independent and distinct and could not be linked with the pendency of criminal appeal.

Senior Advocate MS Krishnan, appearing for the respondent however questioned the maintainability of the criminal revision petition. He submitted that the order passed by the special judge was interlocutory and thus there was an express bar under Section 397(2) of CrPC to challenge the same. He also argued that proceeding with the trial during the pendency of the criminal appeal would cause prejudice. He thus argued that since the charges are yet to be framed in the money laundering case, the trial has not commenced and thus no prejudice will be caused by postponing the trial.

Rejecting the challenge on the ground of maintainability, the court held that the power of the High Court under Section 397 (1) was sufficient to entertain the criminal revision petition against the order. Further, the court noted that the investigation was completed, prima facie findings were made and the complaint was also filed. The court opined that at this stage, it was not viable to take the view that the pendency of criminal appeal would bar the continuation of trial.

The court thus observed that the trial court had committed an error in postponing the PMLA trial and it was necessary to interfere with this order. The court thus allowed the revision and quashed the special court's order postponing trial.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.S.Krishnan Senior Counsel for Mr.Anirudh Krishnan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Case Title: The Assistant Director (PMLA) v Ashok Anand

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