PMLA proceedings are independent of the scheduled offence; earlier acquittal and double jeopardy did not bar continuation.

Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were treated as independent of the underlying scheduled offence and not barred by an earlier acquittal in the related criminal trial. The Court noted that the PMLA is a special enactment with overriding effect, and that once money-laundering allegations are made, the burden under section 24 shifts to the accused to show that the property is untainted. On that basis, the plea of double jeopardy failed, and the challenge to the ECIR, attachment, and alleged procedural illegality in the investigation was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were liable to be quashed on the grounds of alleged illegality and lack of jurisdiction, including the plea that the same subject matter was already involved in other criminal and tax proceedings and that the earlier acquittal barred continuation of the money-laundering action.

Analysis: The petition sought exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the ECIR and consequential proceedings under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court held that the statute is a special enactment with overriding effect, and that proceedings under it are distinct from prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. It also noted that under section 24 of the Act, once allegations of money-laundering are made, the burden lies on the accused to establish that the property is untainted. In that setting, the earlier acquittal in the criminal trial did not terminate the PMLA action, and the plea of double jeopardy was rejected. The Court further declined to interfere on the challenge based on alleged procedural illegality in the investigation and attachment process.

Conclusion: The request to quash the PMLA proceedings was rejected, and the petitioners did not succeed on the merits.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction of the Court was not invoked to stop the money-laundering proceedings, and the challenge to their continuation failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are independent of the underlying scheduled offence, and by virtue of the statutory burden of proof the accused must establish that the property involved is untainted.

---