Disciplinary exoneration does not bar criminal prosecution where independent evidence of fraud and conspiracy remains available.

Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act does not automatically entitle a person to discharge in a criminal prosecution where the allegations rest on independent materials of conspiracy, fabrication of financial statements, and fraudulent procurement of credit facilities. The disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case operate in distinct fields, apply different standards of proof, and a departmental finding does not erase prosecution evidence. On the PMLA aspect, interference was declined and, having regard to the overlapping factual and legal issues and Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the related matter was to be tried by the same court along with the scheduled offence case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exoneration of the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act entitled him to discharge in the criminal case. (ii) Whether the proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act should be interfered with and tried along with the scheduled offences by the same court.

Issue (i): Whether exoneration of the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act entitled him to discharge in the criminal case.

Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings were confined to professional misconduct, whereas the criminal case concerned alleged conspiracy with bank officials and borrowers to fabricate projected financial statements and obtain fraudulent credit facilities. The exoneration by the disciplinary authority did not obliterate the materials collected in investigation showing the petitioner's alleged role beyond mere professional certification, including preparation of false financial statements and loan applications. Exoneration in a departmental proceeding does not automatically lead to exoneration in a criminal prosecution, since the two proceedings operate in distinct fields and are decided on different standards of proof. The disciplinary finding did not negate the prosecution materials or make the criminal inherently improbable.

Conclusion: The prayer for discharge was rightly rejected and the petitioner was not entitled to discharge.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act should be interfered with and tried along with the scheduled offences by the same court.

Analysis: No interference was called for with the PMLA proceeding in view of the reasons sustaining the prosecution in the connected criminal matter. Since the prosecutions involved similar questions of fact and law, and in view of Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, it was appropriate that both matters be tried by the same court.

Conclusion: The request to interfere with the PMLA proceeding was declined, and the related case was directed to be tried by the same court along with the scheduled offence case.

Final Conclusion: The revision challenging discharge failed, while the connected PMLA matter was also sustained with a direction for joint trial before the designated court.

Ratio Decidendi: Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto extinguish criminal liability where the criminal prosecution rests on independent materials showing a distinct allegation of conspiracy or fraud, and proceedings with different objects and standards of proof remain separable.

---