Bail - surrender to trial court - release on bail subject to trial court terms - cancellation of bail for non-appearance or delay - no findings on merits - provisional attachment confirmed by adjudicating authority - PMLA proceedingsBail - surrender to trial court - release on bail subject to trial court terms - PMLA proceedings - Appellant to be surrendered and released on bail in Complaint No. 63/2022 arising out of ECIR/10/PMLA/LZO/2012 - HELD THAT: - Considering the background that the appellant was not the prime accused, was not a government servant, was not arrested during investigation, had earlier been granted bail in related criminal cases and had deposited the amount directed by earlier orders, this Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court. On surrender, the trial court is to release the appellant on bail in Complaint No.63/2022 (ECIR/10/PMLA/LZO/2012) on terms and conditions to be fixed by that court. The Court recorded these directions while refraining from adjudicating the merits of the underlying allegations under the PML Act; it noted that provisional attachment in respect of a property had been confirmed by the adjudicating authority but treated that as background. The Court further made clear that if the appellant fails to appear or deliberately delays or prolongs proceedings, the trial court may cancel the bail granted by this order.Impugned judgment set aside; appellant to surrender and be released on bail in Complaint No.63/2022 on terms to be fixed by the trial court, with liberty to cancel bail for non-appearance or delay; observations without prejudice to merits.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment; appellant directed to surrender and to be released on bail in the PMLA complaint subject to terms to be fixed by the trial court; directions are without prejudice to the merits and bail may be cancelled for non-appearance or deliberate delay.

Money Laundering - after securing the allocation of the coal block, proceeds of crime have been generated by the accused persons - Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - it was held by District Courts that 'prima facie case for summoning all the accused persons is clearly made out for the offence u/s 3 of PMLA punishable u/s 4 of the said Act.' HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.

Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - custody undergone for predicate offences to be included for benefit of statutory bail - bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - limited scope of relief to specified proceedingsSection 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - custody undergone for predicate offences to be included for benefit of statutory bail - bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Applicability of Section 436-A CrPC and entitlement to bail in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34/2016 where the appellant has undergone custody including for predicate offences exceeding half the period of sentence. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the Directorate of Enforcement did not seek extension of the appellant's custody after the initial remand. It was an accepted factual position that the appellant had undergone incarceration for about nine years and two months, inclusive of custody and sentence for predicate offences, and that such custody exceeded half of the period of sentence prescribed since registration and arrest under the PMLA. On these findings the Court held that the statutory condition in Section 436-A CrPC is satisfied. Applying that statutory provision, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order which had imposed a six-month restriction, and directed that the appellant shall appear before the trial court and be released on bail in the specified PMLA proceeding on terms to be fixed by that court. [Paras 2, 3]Section 436-A CrPC applies; appeal allowed and impugned order set aside; appellant to be released on bail in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34/2016 on terms fixed by the trial court.Limited scope of relief to specified proceedings - Whether the bail granted by this Court operates beyond Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34/2016. - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly clarified that its order granting bail is confined to Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34/2016 and does not operate as bail in any other case or proceeding. This limitation was made part of the operative direction to avoid any unintended extension of the relief to other matters in which the appellant may be involved. [Paras 4]Relief confined to Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34/2016; no bail granted in other cases or proceedings.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: having found that the appellant has undergone custody (including for predicate offences) exceeding half the sentence period, the Court applied Section 436-A CrPC, set aside the impugned restriction, and directed release on bail in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34/2016 on terms to be fixed by the trial court; the order is expressly confined to that proceeding and pending applications stand disposed of.

Post-arrest bail - framing of charges - renewal of bail application after framing of charge - judicial non-interference in interim bail orders - direction for expeditious trial proceedingsPost-arrest bail - judicial non-interference in interim bail orders - The Court's interference with the High Court's order declining post-arrest bail. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court considered the petition seeking post-arrest bail against the High Court's refusal. Having heard the parties and noted that an earlier application for post-arrest bail to this Court had been declined, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned High Court order at this interlocutory stage. The Court recorded no exercise of its discretion in favour of bail at present and refused to disturb the High Court's decision.Declined to interfere with the High Court order refusing post-arrest bail; the special leave petition dismissed.Framing of charges - renewal of bail application after framing of charge - direction for expeditious trial proceedings - Whether the petitioner may renew the bail application after framing of charge and steps to be taken by the Trial Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that charges had not yet been framed and granted the petitioner liberty to renew his bail application after framing of charge/discharge before the Trial Court. Any such renewed application is to be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. Further, the Trial Court was directed to take appropriate steps to frame charge/discharge at the earliest and the parties were directed to cooperate to facilitate expeditious proceedings.Liberty granted to the petitioner to move for bail after framing of charges; Trial Court directed to frame charge/discharge expeditiously and the renewed bail application to be decided on merits uninfluenced by prior observations.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed; the petitioner is permitted to seek bail afresh after framing of charge/discharge, any such application to be decided on merits without being influenced by earlier observations, and the Trial Court is directed to frame charge/discharge at the earliest with parties' cooperation.

Framing of charges - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - interference at charge-framing stage - application of precedent in Vijay Madanlal ChoudharyFraming of charges - interference at charge-framing stage - application of precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - No interference with the proceedings before the Special Court at the stage of framing of charges under the PMLA and direction that the Special Court shall follow the law laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. - HELD THAT: - The petition challenged matters that are at the stage of framing of charges by the Special Court under the PMLA. The Supreme Court declined to intervene at this preliminary stage, observing that it was not appropriate to disturb the ongoing proceedings. The Court directed that the Special Court shall apply and follow the legal principles laid down by this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, thereby ensuring that the framing of charges proceeds in accordance with that precedent. No further interference was warranted in the Special Leave Petition. [Paras 4, 5]Special Leave Petition dismissed; Special Court to follow the law in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary while framing charges; pending applications disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition without interfering with the Special Court's charge-framing process under the PMLA and directed that the Special Court shall follow the law laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary; pending applications stand disposed of.

Special Leave Petition - interference with impugned judgment - dismissal of petitionSpecial Leave Petition - interference with impugned judgment - dismissal of petition - The Special Leave Petition seeking interference with the impugned judgment was dismissed. - HELD THAT: - The Court, upon hearing counsel, stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. No separate reasons are recorded in the order beyond the Court's view declining interference. Consequentially, any pending applications connected with the petition were disposed of. [Paras 1, 2]Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the Special Leave Petition; all pending applications stand disposed of.

Summary order. Delay condoned; notice issued returnable on 14.03.2023; interim status quo directed in relation to the properties referred to in the impugned order.

Enlargement on bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Non-necessity of custodial interrogation - Parity with co-accused - Retention in judicial custody serves no meaningful purpose where trial will be protractedEnlargement on bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Non-necessity of custodial interrogation - Parity with co-accused - Enlargement of the petitioner on bail in proceedings under Section 3 read with Section 4, PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the prosecution did not consider custodial interrogation or arrest of the petitioner necessary during investigation and that the first report had been filed on 08-05-2020 while further investigation was stated to be pending. The petitioner surrendered and has been in custody since 03-11-2021. The Court observed that the co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. Weighing these facts and concluding that no meaningful purpose would be served by continued detention, and that the trial is likely to take a reasonable time, the Court-without expressing any view on the merits-held that the petitioner should be released on bail. Release was made subject to the usual requirement of furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge and on the conditions that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the Trial Court regularly and shall not protract the trial. [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge and complying with conditions to appear regularly and not to prolong the trial.Final Conclusion: Special Leave Petition disposed by enlarging the petitioner on bail in the pending PMLA proceedings on the terms recorded by the Court.

Custodial investigation not required - cooperation with investigation - release on bail on arrest - bail terms to be determined by the Trial Court - consideration of regular bail application on merits without being influenced by this orderCustodial investigation not required - cooperation with investigation - release on bail on arrest - bail terms to be determined by the Trial Court - Order dated 23.03.2022 is made absolute and direction given for release on bail in case of arrest since custodial interrogation is unnecessary. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the Investigating Agency never arrested the petitioners during the investigation, the petitioners cooperated with the investigation and the charge-sheet has already been filed. On these findings the Court concluded that custodial interrogation is not required. Consequently the earlier direction (order dated 23.03.2022) is made absolute and, if the petitioners are arrested, they shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the learned Trial Court.Order dated 23.03.2022 made absolute; in case of arrest petitioners to be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the Trial Court.Consideration of regular bail application on merits without being influenced by this order - Petitioners permitted to file regular bail application and the competent court directed to decide it on merits independently. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that within ten days the petitioners may file regular bail applications before the competent court having jurisdiction. The competent court is required to consider such applications in accordance with law and on their own merits, and must not allow its decision to be influenced by the present order. This preserves the trial court's discretion to fix appropriate terms and to adjudicate the regular bail application on the established legal tests.Petitioners may file regular bail applications within ten days; competent court to decide them on merits independently.Final Conclusion: Special Leave Petition disposed of by making the interim order absolute; directions issued for release on bail in case of arrest and for filing and independent consideration of regular bail applications.

Quashing of criminal proceedings - Closure report accepted by Magistrate - Liberty to recall order and to reopen proceedings on change of circumstances - Disposition of special leave petitionQuashing of criminal proceedings - Closure report accepted by Magistrate - Liberty to recall order and to reopen proceedings on change of circumstances - Criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners were closed by this Court while leaving liberty to the respondents to take further action in law on a change of circumstances. - HELD THAT: - The petition sought quashing of the criminal proceedings. While the respondents filed a closure report which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 17.11.2022, the petitioners submitted that changed circumstances warranted closure of the proceedings. Having considered the position and the pendency of related actions, the Court closed the criminal proceedings at this stage. The Court expressly preserved the respondents' legal rights to take appropriate steps available under law, including seeking recall of the present order or reopening proceedings if material change in circumstances occurs. The order therefore disposes of the special leave petition without foreclosing future legal remedies for the respondents.Proceedings closed at this stage; respondents granted liberty to take appropriate legal steps, including recall or reopening, if circumstances change; special leave petition disposed of.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is disposed of by closing the criminal proceedings at this stage, while expressly permitting the respondents to take appropriate legal action in future, including recall of the order, if there is a change in circumstances.

Bail - expeditious trial - obligation to expedite trial under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - custody and duration of detention - liberty to apply for bail on account of lack of trial progressBail - custody and duration of detention - Special Leave Petition not entertained at this stage and disposed of subject to directions - HELD THAT: - The Court, after perusal of the material placed on record in the respondents' counter-affidavit, declined to entertain the Special Leave Petition at this stage and disposed of the petition subject to specific directions to facilitate the trial. The Court recorded its decision not to grant interim relief and framed its disposal on the basis that the trial process should be expedited rather than by immediate grant of bail. The order thereby leaves the question of bail open for future consideration if circumstances change. [Paras 5, 7]SLP not entertained and disposed of subject to directions to ensure expedition of the trialExpeditious trial - obligation to expedite trial under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - liberty to apply for bail on account of lack of trial progress - Direction to the Enforcement Directorate to cooperate for early conclusion of trial and liberty to seek bail if no substantial progress by 31 May 2023 - HELD THAT: - The Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to take all necessary steps to cooperate with the trial Judge to ensure expedition and early conclusion of the trial, noting the trial Judge's observation regarding the need for urgent steps, particularly in light of Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court further provided that if no substantial progress is made in the trial by 31 May 2023, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply afresh for bail; such an application is to be considered by the trial Judge with due regard to the delay in trial progress and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner. The Court thereby vested the trial court with the task of assessing any subsequent bail application in light of trial progress and custody duration. [Paras 4, 5, 6]ED directed to cooperate in expedition of trial; petitioner granted liberty to move for bail if trial does not make substantial progress by 31 May 2023Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is disposed of without grant of bail; the Enforcement Directorate is directed to cooperate for an expedited trial, and the petitioner may apply for bail again if the trial has not made substantial progress by 31 May 2023, the trial Judge to consider such application having regard to delay and custody already undergone.

Pre-trial custody - protection from arrest pending disposal - cooperation with investigation - application for exemption from filing documents - arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - pre-amendment applicability of Section 45 PMLAProtection from arrest pending disposal - cooperation with investigation - pre-trial custody - Interim protection from arrest granted to the petitioners pending service of notice and subject to conditions specified by the Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court issued notice and, as an interim measure, directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the meantime. This protection is conditional: the petitioners are required to continue to cooperate with further investigation. The order records the factual background that the petitioners have undergone prolonged pre-trial custody and are senior citizens, but the Court confined itself to granting interim protection without adjudicating the merits of the allegations or the validity of any arrestable process under the relevant statutory provisions.Petitioners shall not be arrested pending further orders, subject to their continued cooperation with investigation.Application for exemption from filing documents - Applications for exemption from filing documents/facts/annexures and exemption from filing O.T. were allowed. - HELD THAT: - The Court allowed the procedural applications seeking exemption from filing certain documents and from filing the original transaction (O.T.), thereby permitting the petitioners to proceed without filing those materials at this stage. The order is procedural and does not address the substantive merits of the underlying criminal allegations or the applicability of provisions such as Section 45 PMLA.Exemptions sought by the petitioners from filing documents/facts/annexures and from filing O.T. are allowed.Final Conclusion: Notice issued; interim protection from arrest granted to the petitioners on condition of continued cooperation with investigation; applications for exemption from filing documents and O.T. allowed.

Bail - regular bail - pre-arrest bail - interim protection - priority and expeditious consideration by the Trial Court - no comment on merits - maintenance of spirit of earlier orderBail - regular bail - pre-arrest bail - Validity of the High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the impugned High Court order declining bail and, on review of the material on record and submissions, found no infirmity in the High Court's conclusion. The petitioner's counsel conceded that none of the principal accused had been granted pre-arrest bail in the matters involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court held that having regard to the nature of the accusations, the High Court was justified in refusing bail and that grant of bail or pre-arrest bail to other accused would not automatically benefit the petitioner.The High Court's refusal of bail is sustained and the petitions are dismissed insofar as they sought grant of bail.Interim protection - priority and expeditious consideration by the Trial Court - Whether interim protection should be continued and the manner in which the petitioner's bail application should be considered - HELD THAT: - While declining to overturn the High Court's order, the Court addressed the petitioner's personal circumstances and granted limited interim protection. The Court directed that if the petitioner appears before the Trial Court within four weeks and applies for regular bail, the Trial Court shall consider her bail plea expeditiously and in priority. The interim protection shall continue for four weeks or until the Trial Court disposes of the bail application, whichever is earlier. The Court emphasised that this direction does not constitute any comment on the merits of the case.Interim protection continued for four weeks and the Trial Court directed to consider the petitioner's regular bail application expeditiously and in priority.No comment on merits - maintenance of spirit of earlier order - Whether the Supreme Court's order affects merits of the prosecution or binds the Trial Court on merits - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly clarified that it has not commented on the merits of the case and left all aspects open for consideration by the Trial Court in accordance with law. The replacement of the last paragraphs of the earlier order was intended only to correct errors and to put the record straight while maintaining the spirit of the prior order. The Trial Court is expected to consider the bail application dispassionately and uninfluenced by observations in the impugned or present order.No observation made by this Court is to be treated as a comment on merits; all merits issues remain open for the Trial Court.Final Conclusion: The petitions are dismissed, subject to limited interim protection for four weeks and a direction that the Trial Court shall expeditiously and in priority consider any regular bail application filed by the petitioner; no observation of this Court constitutes a comment on the merits.

Pre-arrest bail - interim protection - refusal of adjournment for personal difficulty of counsel - offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - expeditious consideration of regular bail on surrenderPre-arrest bail - offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Validity of the High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court examined the impugned High Court order declining pre-arrest bail and, after hearing counsel and perusing the record, found no infirmity in that decision. The Court noted the nature of the accusations, observed that none of the principal accused had been granted pre-arrest bail, and held that grant of bail to other accused on different occasions would not entitle the petitioner to pre-arrest bail. The Court therefore upheld the High Court's refusal and dismissed the petitions on merits without expressing any view on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner.The High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail is sustained and the petitions are dismissed.Interim protection - expeditious consideration of regular bail on surrender - Continuation and conditional termination of interim protection and direction for expedited regular bail hearing - HELD THAT: - Although the petitions were dismissed, the Court, having regard to the overall circumstances including that the petitioner is a woman of about 58 years of age, directed that the interim protection already granted shall continue for one week from the date of the order or until the Trial Court disposes of the petitioner's application for regular bail, whichever is earlier. The Court further provided that if the petitioner surrenders within that week and applies for regular bail, the Trial Court shall consider the bail plea expeditiously and in priority. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the underlying allegations, leaving all aspects open for consideration by the Trial Court in accordance with law.Interim protection extended for one week or until the Trial Court disposes of the regular bail application; surrender within the week entitles the petitioner to expeditious and priority consideration of her bail plea.Refusal of adjournment for personal difficulty of counsel - Propriety of declining further adjournment sought on ground of personal difficulty of instructing counsel - HELD THAT: - The Court took note of the history of adjournments sought on grounds of the instructing counsel's personal difficulty, the subject-matter of the petition, prior proceedings and observations in the impugned order, and declined the prayer for further adjournment. The Court proceeded to hear the matter and reach its decision without granting the adjournment sought by the petitioner.Prayer for adjournment on account of personal difficulty of the instructing counsel was declined.Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging the High Court's refusal of pre-arrest bail are dismissed; interim protection shall continue for one week from the order or until the Trial Court disposes of the petitioner's regular bail application, and if the petitioner surrenders within that period the Trial Court shall consider her bail plea expeditiously and in priority; no opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations.

Grant of bail during ongoing investigation - prejudice to the investigating process - liberty to approach Trial Court for bail after completion of investigation - expedited completion of investigation - consideration of bail petition on its own merits without influence of prior ordersGrant of bail during ongoing investigation - prejudice to the investigating process - Petitioner not released on bail at the present stage as grant of bail might hamper the ongoing investigation. - HELD THAT: - Having heard senior counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General for the respondent, the Court found no ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage because such release could interfere with and prejudice the ongoing investigative process. The Court therefore refused interim relief of bail while the investigation remains pending. [Paras 1]Bail is refused at this stage; no release on bail.Liberty to approach Trial Court for bail after completion of investigation - consideration of bail petition on its own merits without influence of prior orders - expedited completion of investigation - Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Trial Court for bail after investigation is complete; respondent directed to expedite investigation and endeavour to complete it within three months. - HELD THAT: - The Court permitted the petitioner, once the investigation is complete, to move the Trial Court for bail, directing that such an application shall be considered on its own merits and without being influenced by the orders passed by the High Court or this Court. In addition, the respondent was directed to expedite the investigation and to endeavour to complete it within three months, thereby providing a timeline for conclusion of investigative proceedings. [Paras 2, 3]Liberty to apply for bail after completion of investigation; investigation to be expedited and endeavoured to be completed within three months.Final Conclusion: Special Leave Petition disposed of: interim bail refused; petitioner may approach the Trial Court after completion of investigation which the respondent is directed to endeavour to complete within three months; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; delay condoned; liberty granted to the petitioner to move in the event the challenge to the discharge in the predicate offence succeeds; pending application disposed of.

Effect of cessation of predicate offence on proceedings under PMLA - Quashing of ECIR following acceptance of a closure report - Consequences of acquittal in the predicate offence for attachment and appellate proceedings under PMLA - Judicial recusal and bench composition - Urgent listing as administrative prerogative of the Chief JusticeQuashing of ECIR following acceptance of a closure report - Effect of cessation of predicate offence on proceedings under PMLA - ECIR No.CEZO/01/2017 was quashed and the Special Leave Petition and related application disposed of because a closure report in respect of the predicate offence had been accepted, leading to the proceedings not surviving. - HELD THAT: - The Solicitor General informed the Court that a closure report in relation to the predicate offence had been accepted. The Court proceeded on that basis and held that where the predicate offence has effectively ceased by acceptance of a closure report, the consequent proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act arising from that predicate offence cannot survive. Applying that position to the present facts, the Court quashed the ECIR No.CEZO/01/2017 and disposed of the Special Leave Petition and the pending application accordingly.ECIR No.CEZO/01/2017 quashed; the application and Special Leave Petition disposed of.Consequences of acquittal in the predicate offence for attachment and appellate proceedings under PMLA - Criminal appeals filed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA were disposed of because there was acquittal in respect of the predicate offence and the attachment based proceedings therefore did not survive. - HELD THAT: - The Solicitor General fairly represented that the proceedings before the Court arose from an order of attachment connected to the predicate offence, and that there had been an acquittal in relation to that predicate offence. The Court treated that representation as determinative of the continuance of the PMLA appeals and held that when the predicate offence is acquitted, related attachment and appellate proceedings under PMLA cannot subsist. Consequent upon this legal consequence, the appeals by the Adjudicating Authority were disposed of. The trial court record was directed to be returned to the trial court.Appeals by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA disposed of; trial court record to be sent back to the trial court.Judicial recusal and bench composition - Urgent listing as administrative prerogative of the Chief Justice - A recusal by one Judge was recorded and the Court observed that urgent listing is a matter for the Chief Justice; a Bench comprising one of the present Judges could not be a Member in the related matter. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that in an earlier SLP one of the Judges had recused. On that basis, it recorded that listing the matter before a Bench including the recused Judge would be impermissible, and observed that requests for urgent listing fall within the administrative discretion of the Chief Justice of India. These observations govern the composition for further hearing and the procedure for urgent listing.Recusal recorded; matter not to be listed before the recused Judge; urgent listing is for the Chief Justice to determine.Final Conclusion: Proceedings under PMLA arising from the predicate offence do not survive where the predicate offence has been closed by acceptance of a closure report or where the predicate offence has resulted in acquittal; accordingly the ECIR was quashed, the Special Leave Petition and related application were disposed of, the PMLA appeals were dismissed as not surviving, and the trial court record was returned to the trial court; recusal and listing observations were recorded.

Summary order. Appeals filed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) disposed of as proceedings arising from an attachment do not survive in view of acquittal in respect of the predicate offence; trial court record to be returned to the trial court.

Predicate offence requirement for prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - stay of criminal proceedings pending adjudicationPredicate offence requirement for prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - stay of criminal proceedings - Whether prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can proceed against the petitioner who is not an accused in the underlying prescribed offence registered on 15.11.2013 - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded the submission of counsel that the petitioner is not an accused in the offence registered on 15.11.2013 under the specified IPC provisions. In view of that factual position, the Court considered that, at least prima facie, prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot proceed against the present petitioner without further adjudication. Acting on that consideration, the Court issued notice and granted interim relief restraining further proceedings. The order is interlocutory and entered to preserve the petitioner's position pending disposal of the petition.Notice issued; further proceedings including prosecution against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are stayed until further orders.Final Conclusion: Interim order: notice issued and prosecution/proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act stayed until further orders; matter tagged with SLP (Crl.) No. 10360 of 2022 and Dasti permitted.

Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - predicate offence - interim stay of proceedings - issuance of noticeProsecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - predicate offence - interim stay of proceedings - Further proceedings, including prosecution of the petitioner under the PMLA, were stayed pending further orders and notice was issued. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded the petitioner's submission that they are not accused in the predicate offence registered on 15.11.2013 and, in the circumstances, contended that prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA could not be maintained against them. The Court issued notice returnable on 9 January 2023 and granted interim relief by staying further proceedings, including any prosecution qua the petitioner, until further orders. The order is interlocutory and does not decide the merits of the contentions raised.Notice issued and further proceedings including prosecution against the petitioner stayed until further orders.Final Conclusion: Interlocutory order: notice issued and an interim stay granted on further proceedings, including prosecution under the PMLA, against the petitioner until further orders.