Independent PMLA prosecution survives pending predicate offence; simultaneous trial cannot be compelled under Section 44.

Section 44 of the PMLA was treated as the controlling provision for trials involving money-laundering and connected scheduled offences, and its explanation was read to mean that the Special Court's jurisdiction over the PMLA offence does not depend on orders in the predicate case. The court's treatment of the two matters being tried by the same court was not viewed as a joint trial. Money-laundering was reaffirmed as an independent and stand-alone offence, so pendency of the predicate offence did not bar continuation of the PMLA trial. On that basis, there was no legal ground to compel a simultaneous trial at the accused's instance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Court can be directed to conduct simultaneous trial of the PMLA case and the predicate offence, and whether pendency of the predicate offence bars continuation of the PMLA trial.

Analysis: Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as the controlling provision governing trial of money-laundering offences and connected scheduled offences. The explanation to Section 44 was applied to hold that the Special Court's jurisdiction to deal with the PMLA offence is not dependent on orders passed in the scheduled offence, and that trial of both sets of offences by the same court is not to be construed as a joint trial. The Court relied on the settled position that money-laundering is an independent and stand-alone offence, and that the pendency of the predicate offence does not disable the Special Court from proceeding with the PMLA case. On that footing, there was no legal basis to compel a simultaneous trial at the instance of the accused.

Conclusion: The request for a direction to conduct simultaneous trial was rejected, and the PMLA trial was held to be maintainable independently of the pending predicate offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution under the PMLA is independent of the predicate offence, and Section 44 does not require simultaneous trial or make the Special Court's jurisdiction dependent on the progress or outcome of the scheduled offence.

---