Corresponding scheduled offence under PMLA extends to local penal law, sustaining money-laundering proceedings and summons.

Section 2(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was applied to treat the local law in force in Jammu and Kashmir as the corresponding provision where the Indian Penal Code was not in force, so criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code was regarded as a deemed scheduled offence. On that basis, the Court held that proceeds derived from that offence could constitute proceeds of crime, and activity connected with them could fall within the money-laundering provisions. The absence of other alleged predicate offences from the Schedule did not defeat the PMLA proceedings, and the summons and investigation were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code is a scheduled offence corresponding to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for the purpose of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be sustained when the alleged predicate offences under the Ranbir Penal Code are not separately scheduled offences.

Issue (i): Whether criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code is a scheduled offence corresponding to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for the purpose of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 2(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires references in the Act and Schedule to be construed with the corresponding law in force in the concerned area where the cited enactment is not in force. The Court held that this provision operates independently of the later inserted definition of "corresponding law" in Section 2(1)(ia), which was introduced for the 2013 amendments and foreign predicate offences. Since Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code appears in Part A of the Schedule, the corresponding provision in the Ranbir Penal Code was treated as the local equivalent for the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Conclusion: Criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code was held to be a deemed scheduled offence corresponding to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be sustained when the alleged predicate offences under the Ranbir Penal Code are not separately scheduled offences.

Analysis: The Court held that criminal conspiracy is an independent and stand alone offence. Once Section 120-B is itself a scheduled offence, any property derived from criminal activity relating to that offence constitutes "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u), and any process or activity connected with such proceeds falls within Section 3. The summons issued under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) were therefore within jurisdiction. The absence of Sections 406 and 409 of the Ranbir Penal Code from the Schedule did not defeat the proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to be maintainable and not without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both jurisdictional objections, and the summons and investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provision listed in the Schedule has a corresponding local penal provision in force in the territory concerned, that local provision is to be treated as a scheduled offence, and money-laundering jurisdiction can be founded on proceeds derived from that scheduled offence even though other alleged underlying offences are not separately scheduled.

---