Money-laundering complaint survives repayment, with double jeopardy, jurisdiction, and inquiry objections rejected on distinct statutory grounds.

Repayment of the underlying loan does not by itself bar a money-laundering complaint where the allegations concern concealment, layering, integration and projection of proceeds of crime under the PMLA, because the offence is treated as continuing. A prior FIR and charge-sheet for IPC offences do not attract double jeopardy when the complaint is founded on the distinct statutory offence of money-laundering with different ingredients. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld on the basis that the acts were connected with the relevant branch transaction and fell within the Special Court's area. Cognizance was also sustained because the complaint was filed by a public servant acting in discharge of official duty, making examination under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC unnecessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were barred because the loan amount had already been repaid; (ii) whether the complaint was hit by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; (iii) whether the Special Court at Dehradun lacked jurisdiction; and (iv) whether cognizance could be taken without inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether the complaint proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were barred because the loan amount had already been repaid.

Analysis: The complaint alleged concealment, layering, integration and use of proceeds of crime to project tainted funds as untainted property. Offence under Section 3 of the Act was treated as a continuing activity under the statutory explanation, and repayment of the loan did not undo the alleged laundering activity already committed or continuing through concealment and projection of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The repayment of the loan did not bar the prosecution under the Act and the petitioners were not entitled to quashing on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint was hit by double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Analysis: The earlier FIR and charge-sheet related to distinct offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whereas the complaint concerned the separate offence of money-laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The two proceedings were based on different ingredients and did not amount to a second trial for the same offence, so the protections against double jeopardy and successive trial were not attracted.

Conclusion: The bar against double jeopardy did not apply to the complaint proceedings.

Issue (iii): whether the Special Court at Dehradun lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The alleged acts of forging documents, taking the loan and using the alleged proceeds of crime were connected with the Roorkee branch transaction and the offence was treated as having been committed within the territorial area covered by the competent Special Court. On that basis, Section 44 of the Act supported the jurisdiction of the court which had taken cognizance.

Conclusion: The Special Court at Dehradun had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Issue (iv): whether cognizance could be taken without inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint had been filed by a public servant acting in discharge of official duties. Under the proviso to Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant and witnesses was not necessary in such a case, and therefore the absence of inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 did not vitiate the proceedings.

Conclusion: Cognizance without such inquiry was valid.

Final Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a distinct and continuing money-laundering offence, and none of the procedural or jurisdictional objections warranted interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: An alleged money-laundering prosecution is not barred merely because the underlying loan liability has been repaid, where the complaint discloses concealment, layering or projection of proceeds of crime, and such proceedings are not hit by double jeopardy when they are founded on a distinct statutory offence with different ingredients.

---