PMLA prosecution requires a live predicate offence link before action can proceed against a person not named in the scheduled crime.

Interim protection under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was considered where the petitioner was not named as an accused in the scheduled offence and the arrest grounds suggested a different version of involvement. Applying the principle that an offence under Section 3 depends on criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence and illegal gain of property derived from it, the Court found no objective basis at that stage to proceed against the petitioner in the absence of a registered predicate offence against him. Interim stay of further proceedings in the ECIR was therefore granted insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection by staying further proceedings in the ECIR on the ground that the alleged money-laundering action could not be sustained without his involvement in a registered predicate offence.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the ECIR and the arrest-related action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the scheduled offence case and that the arrest grounds introduced a different version of involvement. Relying on the governing principle that an offence under Section 3 of the Act depends on illegal gain of property arising from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, the Court found no objective basis at this stage to treat the petitioner as prosecutable under the Act in the absence of a registered predicate offence against him.

Conclusion: Interim stay of all further proceedings in ECIR/CEZO-1/17/2020 was granted insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

---