Independent money-laundering prosecution can continue despite pending challenge in the scheduled offence, where the predicate offence is already proved.

Money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent offence, though it rests on proceeds of crime generated by a scheduled offence. A prior scheduled offence conviction can sustain the money-laundering case even if the person facing prosecution under PMLA is not himself an accused in that scheduled offence. On that basis, the trial under PMLA was held not to depend on the separate challenge to the petitioner's arraignment or arrest in the scheduled offence, and it was not liable to be stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be deferred or stayed pending the proceedings in the scheduled offence.

Analysis: The offence of money laundering is an independent offence, but it derives its substratum from proceeds of crime generated by a scheduled offence. The existence of a scheduled offence is necessary for prosecution under the money-laundering law, yet the person prosecuted under that law need not necessarily be an accused in the scheduled offence. Where the scheduled offence has already resulted in conviction of the principal accused, and the money-laundering case is founded on use of the proceeds of that proved offence, the trial under the money-laundering law does not depend upon the fate of the petitioner's separate challenge to his own arraignment or arrest in the scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not liable to be stayed and the petition failed.

---