Environmental compensation remitted for fresh determination; PMLA liability cannot stand without a registered scheduled offence.

Environmental compensation based on a mechanical and legally flawed assessment was set aside and remitted for fresh determination because the waste quantity was not properly attributed and the computation was unsustainable. Liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be fastened in the absence of a registered scheduled offence or a corresponding complaint/FIR alleging the predicate offences, so the PMLA direction was also set aside. The matter therefore proceeded only on redetermination of compensation in accordance with law, while the money-laundering liability finding was annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the environmental compensation computed by the pollution control board required to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination in accordance with law; (ii) Whether liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be fastened in the absence of any registered scheduled offence or complaint under the pollution statutes.

Issue (i): The compensation had been determined on an erroneous and mechanical basis. The determination did not properly attribute the quantity of waste to the appellant and the manner of computation was found unsustainable. Once the determination itself was found to be legally infirm, the proper course was fresh determination by the authority concerned.

Conclusion: The direction relating to environmental compensation was set aside and the matter was remitted for redetermination in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 depends upon the existence of a scheduled offence and the corresponding criminal process. In the absence of any FIR or complaint alleging the predicate offences, proceedings under the money-laundering law could not be initiated. The direction fastening PMLA liability was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The finding that the appellant was liable for action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in part, with the impugned directions on PMLA liability annulled and the environmental compensation issue sent back for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be sustained unless a scheduled offence has been registered or is otherwise pending in the manner recognised by law, and a mechanically assessed environmental compensation may be set aside for fresh determination when the computation is legally flawed.

---