Court upholds charges under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, rejects unsustainable arguments

The court upheld the order framing charges against petitioner No.2 under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, finding prima facie evidence of her involvement in activities connected with proceeds of a scheduled crime. The court rejected arguments that the charges were unsustainable due to the nature of the offenses and clarified that the prosecution under PMLA is independent of prosecution for the scheduled offense. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the order and the sufficiency of evidence against petitioner No.2 for the alleged money laundering offense.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned order rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner No.2 for discharge is legally sustainable.
2. Whether the charges framed against the petitioner No.2 are liable to be quashed by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Impugned Order
The petition against petitioner No.1 Harishankar was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to raise all grounds available in law before the trial Court. The main challenge was against the order framing charge dated 03.06.2022, and the charge framed against petitioner No.2 Smt. Seema Gurjar for the alleged commission of the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), punishable under Section 4 thereof.

The petitioner argued that since Smt. Seema Gurjar was not named in the FIR for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was only prosecuted under Section 109 of IPC, which is not a scheduled offence under PMLA, her prosecution is an abuse of the process of law. However, the trial Court opined that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie frame charges against her for money laundering.

The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Judge should consider the broad probabilities of the case and not weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial. The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence to show that petitioner No.2 knowingly assisted her husband in activities connected with the proceeds of the scheduled crime, thus making her liable under Section 3 of PMLA.

Issue 2: Quashing of Charges
The petitioner contended that since the offence under Section 109 of IPC is not a scheduled offence under PMLA, her prosecution under PMLA is not sustainable. However, the Court noted that PMLA deals with laundering of money acquired by committing a scheduled offence and is independent of the prosecution for the scheduled offence. The Court found that petitioner No.2 was actively involved in converting tainted money into legal money, thus justifying the charges framed against her.

The Court also addressed the plea of double jeopardy, clarifying that it is not applicable as the person is being tried under the scheme of PMLA and not under the Penal Code/PC Act. The Court further dismissed the argument regarding the retrospective application of the PMLA, citing the Supreme Court's verdict that the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence.

In conclusion, the Court held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.06.2022, as there is sufficient prima facie evidence against petitioner No.2 for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under Section 4 of the said enactment. The petition qua petitioner No.2 was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

---