Money-laundering proceedings are independent of the scheduled offence, and a memo cannot change the original relief sought.

Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are treated as independent of the scheduled offence, and the Special Court is not bound to defer the money-laundering case until charges in the predicate offence are heard first. The court also held that the 2019 clarifications to Sections 2(1)(u), 3 and 44(1)(d) support separate prosecution rather than a joint trial. A memo could not validly alter the original prayer from sequential hearing to simultaneous hearing, because that would fundamentally change the relief sought and was impermissible under Section 362 CrPC. The request for a different hearing sequence was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence was required to be taken up before the money-laundering cases or whether the matters could be proceeded with simultaneously. (ii) Whether the prayer in the original petitions could be modified by memo to seek simultaneous hearing of the scheduled offence and the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether such relief was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence was required to be taken up before the money-laundering cases or whether the matters could be proceeded with simultaneously.

Analysis: The petitions sought to postpone or reorder the hearing sequence so that the scheduled offence would be heard first. The Court examined the scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the definitions of proceeds of crime, the offence of money-laundering, and the jurisdictional provisions governing trial by the Special Court. It held that the 2019 explanations clarifying Sections 2(1)(u), 3 and 44(1)(d) make the money-laundering prosecution independent, that the special court is not dependent on orders in the scheduled offence, and that the trial of both sets of offences is not to be treated as a joint trial. On that basis, the earlier course of posting both matters together did not create a legal right to insist that the scheduled offence must be taken up first.

Conclusion: The request to take up the hearing on charges in the scheduled offence before the money-laundering cases was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the prayer in the original petitions could be modified by memo to seek simultaneous hearing of the scheduled offence and the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether such relief was permissible.

Analysis: The memo sought to alter the original prayer from a request to hear the scheduled offence first into a request for simultaneous hearing in immediate succession or together. The Court held that such a change would substantially change the nature of the relief sought and was not permissible under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It further held that the statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, treats money-laundering as a stand-alone offence with its own trial mechanism, so the requested modification did not have legal support.

Conclusion: The memo-based modification of the prayer was not permissible.

Final Conclusion: The applications were found to be without merit because the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 proceedings could continue independently of the scheduled offence, and the requested alteration of the prayer was impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are independent of the scheduled offence, and the Special Court is not bound to defer money-laundering proceedings until the scheduled offence is tried first.

---