Money-laundering is an independent offence; later scheduling of the predicate offence and Section 202 inquiry do not bar prosecution.

Money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent and continuing offence concerned with dealing in proceeds of crime, so prosecution may proceed even if the predicate offence was notified as a scheduled offence later, and the relevant date is when the accused dealt with the proceeds. Possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and money-laundering under the PMLA have distinct ingredients and operate in different fields, so a double jeopardy objection does not arise. A Special Court under the PMLA may take cognizance directly on a complaint by the authorised authority, and Section 202(2) CrPC inquiry is not mandatory before issuing summons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could proceed when the alleged predicate offence had been notified as a scheduled offence only later. (ii) Whether prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and prosecution for money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 amounted to double jeopardy or subsumption of one offence within the other. (iii) Whether the Special Court was required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before issuing summons on a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (iv) Whether a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could proceed when the alleged predicate offence had been notified as a scheduled offence only later.

Analysis: The offence of money-laundering is an independent offence concerned with the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in or continues to indulge in dealing with such proceeds, and not the date on which the scheduled offence was committed. The question whether the accused dealt with the proceeds of crime is a factual matter for trial.

Conclusion: The prosecution was maintainable and the issue was not fit for discharge at the threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and prosecution for money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 amounted to double jeopardy or subsumption of one offence within the other.

Analysis: The ingredients of the two offences are distinct. Possession of disproportionate assets may be complete even if the illegal money has been spent, whereas money-laundering is made out when a person directly or indirectly attempts to indulge in, assists in, or is actually involved in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime and projects it as untainted property. The two enactments operate in different fields and one is not subsumed in the other.

Conclusion: The plea of double jeopardy was rejected and the two prosecutions were held to be distinct.

Issue (iii): Whether the Special Court was required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before issuing summons on a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is empowered to take cognizance directly on a complaint by the authorised authority. Since cognizance is not taken by a Magistrate and there is no committal process, the procedure under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply. The authorities relied on by the petitioner were held to be in a different context.

Conclusion: No mandatory inquiry under Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required before issuance of summons.

Issue (iv): Whether a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was warranted.

Analysis: The questions raised were already covered by binding Supreme Court authority, and the cited decision on benami property was found factually inapplicable. No unanswered substantial question of law arose for certification.

Conclusion: The request for a certificate for appeal was declined.

Final Conclusion: The revision and original petition were held to be without merit, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Ratio Decidendi: Money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent and continuing offence based on dealing with proceeds of crime, and a Special Court under that Act may take cognizance directly without the Section 202(2) inquiry applicable to committal-based proceedings before a Magistrate.

---