The Madras High Court held that the accused cannot request a simultaneous or joint trial even if both are pending before the same court since the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 is separate and different from the trial of the predicate offence.
M Venkatesan filed a petition seeking directions to the Principal Sessions Judge Puducherry to conduct a 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. The present petition was moved as the Principal Sessions Judge was the designated Special Court for PMLA and CBI cases.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The petitioner stated 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 a fair trial was a basic right that 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 several judgments. He pointed out that once the complaint has been registered under the provisions of PMLA, it becomes a stand-alone process and the Special Court need not be dependent on the predicate offence.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
It was found that the Special Court is competent and has jurisdiction to conduct separate trials both under PMLA case and for predicate offence, if it happens to be the same Special Court or even in case, the predicate offence is pending before any other Court. The Special Court dealing with the PMLA offence has jurisdiction to conduct a trial irrespective of the fact, whether the predicate offence is pending or otherwise. Thus pendency of the predicate offence is not a bar for continuing the trial under the PMLA by the Special 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.”, division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman held.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
When the procedures contemplated under the PMLA for the trial are distinct and different, the 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. The court refused to grant relief.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
