The Delhi High Court has ruled that proceedings or prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ) cannot be sustained if the accused has been acquitted in the predicate offence. The court also directed the release of attached properties on the observation that the offence of money laundering is dependent on the proceeds of crime generated from a scheduled offence.
The decision came in response to a petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, represented by Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Deepak Kumar against Akhilesh Singh, who had been acquitted in a case related to a predicate offence but was still facing proceedings under the PMLA.
The respondent had been embroiled in a case pertaining to financial irregularities dating back to 2018 and was acquitted by the trial court on the grounds of lack of evidence.
However, despite his acquittal in the predicate offence, the Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) continued its investigation under the provisions of the PMLA, freezing his assets and subjecting him to further legal scrutiny.
The petitioner revenue contended that despite an acquittal in the predicate offence, proceedings under the PMLA could still be initiated. They argued that the PMLA proceedings were independent of the outcome of the predicate offence.
This was challenged and the respondent highlighted the principle of double jeopardy – the concept that an individual cannot be tried or punished for the same offence twice. The respondent contended that subjecting him to PMLA proceedings after his acquittal in the predicate offence amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The respondent argued that the provisions of PMLA did not preclude the initiation of proceedings after the acquittal in the predicate offence. It was also contended that the legislative intent allowed for separate proceedings under the PMLA irrespective of the outcome of the predicate offence trial.
The division bench comprising Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Meera Sharma asserted that the continuation of PMLA proceedings against the petitioner was legally untenable.
It was also held that there is no infirmity in the order issued by the Special Judge whereby the attached movable and immovable properties were directed to be released.
The court emphasised the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights. The bench stated, “It is a well-established legal principle that once an individual has been acquitted in a predicate offence, he cannot be subjected to further legal proceedings based on the same set of facts. To allow such proceedings would not only be unjust but also unconstitutional”.
The judgment stressed the fundamental principle of legal jurisprudence that no person should be subjected to double jeopardy. It sets an important precedent that will guide future cases involving the interpretation of laws related to financial crimes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
