Money-laundering complaint authority and continuing offence principle upheld, with limited dispensation of personal appearance during trial.

Sections 48 and 49 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 treat the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate as an authorised authority, so no separate authorisation was needed for filing the complaint before the Special Court. The Court also treated money-laundering as tied to the date of the alleged laundering activity, not the date of the predicate offence, and held that proceedings remained maintainable because the alleged laundering and ED action occurred after the relevant offence had been scheduled. Personal appearance of one accused was dispensed with for routine hearings, subject to appearance for framing of charges, Section 313 examination, judgment, and when identification evidence is required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate was competent to file the complaint before the Special Court without any separate authorisation. (ii) Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained when the predicate offence was not a scheduled offence on the date of registration of the CBI case, but the alleged laundering activity and the Enforcement Directorate investigation were initiated after the offence was scheduled. (iii) Whether the presence of one accused could be dispensed with during routine hearings, subject to appearance on specified occasions.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate was competent to file the complaint before the Special Court without any separate authorisation.

Analysis: Sections 48 and 49 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, together with the relevant notifications and the Government order, classify the Assistant Director as an authority for the purposes of the Act. Once the statute itself clothes the Assistant Director with that status, no further special authorisation is required for presentation of the complaint before the Special Court for cognizance under Section 44(b) of the Act.

Conclusion: The complaint filed by the Assistant Director was competent and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained when the predicate offence was not a scheduled offence on the date of registration of the CBI case, but the alleged laundering activity and the Enforcement Directorate investigation were initiated after the offence was scheduled.

Analysis: The Court noted that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added to the schedule only later, but the Enforcement Directorate registered the money-laundering case after that inclusion. Relying on the principle that money-laundering is connected to the dealing with proceeds of crime and can constitute a continuing offence, the Court held that the relevant date is when the accused indulges in the laundering process, not the date of the predicate offence. Accordingly, prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the maintainability of the proceedings on this ground failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the presence of one accused could be dispensed with during routine hearings, subject to appearance on specified occasions.

Analysis: The Court accepted the request and directed that the accused need appear only for answering charges, examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and on the date of judgment, with liberty to the trial court to insist on presence when identification by a witness is required and to entertain applications under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 liberally for the remaining hearings.

Conclusion: The request for dispensing with personal appearance was allowed to the stated extent.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the prosecution was rejected, while limited directions were issued regulating personal appearance during trial.

Ratio Decidendi: For money-laundering prosecutions, the determinative date is the date of the alleged laundering activity connected with proceeds of crime, and statutory classification of an ED officer as an authority under the Act is sufficient for filing a complaint without separate authorisation.

---