The High Court rules that prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is distinct and not barred by a prior conviction under the Indian Penal Code.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed petitions challenging ongoing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, citing the doctrine of double jeopardy. The Court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, concluded that the prosecution under the PMLA is independent and distinct from any predicate offences for which the petitioners were previously convicted.
The case, involving petitioners Dilip A @ JCB Dilipa and others, revolved around charges of money laundering following their conviction for predicate offences related to activities post-demonetization. The petitioners contended that the continuation of PMLA proceedings amounted to double jeopardy, as they had already faced trial and conviction under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for related offences.
Justice Nagaprasanna, however, clarified that the principle of double jeopardy, as enshrined in Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), does not extend to distinct statutory offences under different enactments. The Court emphasized that the PMLA creates a separate statutory offence concerning the laundering of proceeds of crime, which remains independent of the predicate offence under the IPC.
The Court cited previous judgments from the High Courts of Madras and Madhya Pradesh to support its decision, underscoring that while the offences under the IPC and PMLA may be factually interconnected, they are legally distinct. The High Court of Madras, in particular, had previously ruled in a similar context that the prosecution under the PMLA does not constitute double jeopardy, a stance that the Karnataka High Court agreed with.
The ruling has broader implications for the interpretation of the PMLA, reinforcing its role in addressing financial crimes beyond the scope of predicate offences. The Court's decision effectively paves the way for the trial under the PMLA to proceed in accordance with the law, emphasizing the distinct legal framework that governs money laundering activities.
As a result, the petitions were dismissed, and any interim orders that had stayed the proceedings were dissolved. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's stance on the independent prosecution of offences under different statutory regimes, even when stemming from the same set of facts.
Bottom line:-
Doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) when an accused has already been convicted for predicate offences under another statute. The prosecution under PMLA is independent and distinct from the predicate offence, even if factually interconnected.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
