PMLA prosecution can proceed despite pending attachment appeal, as attachment is separate from criminal trial.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisional attachment is an interim protective measure, while prosecution under Section 3 proceeds separately before the Special Court. Pending appeal against the attachment order and its confirmation does not bar a complaint or summoning order, and does not justify a stay of proceedings. Where the complaint is supported by material showing prima facie linkage to proceeds of crime, the dispute over the source of funds is a matter for trial. On these facts, the complaint, summoning order, and stay request were not interfered with and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint and summoning order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be quashed, or the proceedings stayed, merely because the attachment order and its confirmation were under challenge in appeal and had not attained finality.

Analysis: The scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 treats attachment as an interim protective measure and the prosecution under Section 3 as a separate proceeding before the Special Court. The Act contemplates provisional attachment under Section 5, confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8, and continuation of attachment during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The complaint was not founded only on the attachment orders but on the recovery of money prima facie linked to proceeds of crime and on the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate. The pendency of appeal against attachment does not create a statutory bar to prosecution, and the petitioner's defence regarding the source of the was a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The complaint, summoning order, and request for stay were not liable to be interfered with; the challenge failed.

---