Maintainability of a second Section 482 petition and absence of proceeds of crime defeated PMLA continuation.

A second petition under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable where the earlier petition had been dismissed during pending investigation and the later petition rested on changed circumstances and a fresh challenge not finally decided earlier; the bar under Section 362 CrPC did not apply, and inherent powers could be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. The Court also held that an outstanding arising from an MOU and forex fluctuation was an ordinary commercial liability, not property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence; absent identifiable proceeds of crime, continuation of PMLA proceedings was not justified and the ECIR could not be sustained on those facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite dismissal of an earlier petition, and (ii) whether the outstanding arising from the MOU and forex fluctuation constituted "proceeds of crime" so as to justify continuation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite dismissal of an earlier petition.

Analysis: The earlier petition had been dismissed when the investigation was still pending. The later petition was founded on changed circumstances, including subsequent attachment of properties and a fresh challenge directed to a point not finally determined earlier. The bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable to such a second petition, and the inherent power could be invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The second petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the outstanding arising from the MOU and forex fluctuation constituted "proceeds of crime" so as to justify continuation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Liability arising from a commercial arrangement and exchange-rate fluctuation was held to be an ordinary business outstanding, not property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The judgment emphasised that money-laundering under Section 3 of the Act requires the existence of proceeds of crime, and that every civil or commercial liability cannot be converted into a PMLA case. On the facts, no criminal activity producing property or proceeds of crime was shown.

Conclusion: The outstanding was not treated as proceeds of crime and continuation of the ECIR proceedings was not justified.

Final Conclusion: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were not sustainable on the facts found, as the dispute disclosed a commercial liability rather than criminal proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi: For proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 to continue, there must be identifiable proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence; a mere commercial or contractual outstanding, including one arising from forex fluctuation, does not by itself satisfy that requirement.

---