Supreme Court Quashes Money-Laundering Proceedings, Petitioners Discharged

The Supreme Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The petitioners were discharged from the scheduled offence by the High Court of Orissa, and as per the law, no prosecution for money-laundering can be initiated against them. The prosecuting agency did not challenge the discharge order, and the petitioners remain discharged with no legal basis for continuing the prosecution under PMLA. The judgment reserves the right for respondents to seek revival of proceedings if the discharge order is annulled or varied with legitimate grounds to proceed under PMLA.

---

---

Issues:
1. Prosecution in relation to scheduled offence and Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2022 (PMLA).
2. Discharge of petitioners from scheduled offence.
3. Challenge to the order of discharge by prosecuting agency.
4. Quashing of proceedings under PMLA.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2022 (PMLA) in relation to a scheduled offence. Reference is made to a previous judgment highlighting that prosecution for money-laundering cannot proceed if the person has been discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence. The petitioners in this case were discharged from the scheduled offence, and it is argued that no prosecution for money-laundering can be initiated against them based on the law declared by the Court.

2. The petitioners were discharged from the scheduled offence by the High Court of Orissa, as per the order dated 27.11.2020. The judgment emphasizes that since the petitioners stand discharged from the scheduled offence, there is no legal basis for prosecuting them for money-laundering in connection with the same offence. The law prohibits prosecuting individuals for money-laundering if they have been discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence.

3. The prosecuting agency did not challenge the order of discharge issued by the High Court. However, the Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents did not confirm whether the prosecuting agency intended to challenge the discharge order. The judgment notes that as of the current record, the petitioners remain discharged from the scheduled offence, and there is no legal ground for continuing the prosecution under PMLA.

4. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The judgment reserves the liberty for the respondents to seek revival of the proceedings if the order discharging the petitioners is annulled or varied, provided there are legitimate grounds to proceed under PMLA. All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of as part of the judgment.

---