Double jeopardy protection does not prevent money-laundering prosecution where its elements differ from the predicate offence.

Double jeopardy does not bar prosecution for money laundering after conviction for the predicate offence because the two offences have distinct legal ingredients. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits a second trial for the same offence, or in limited circumstances an offence founded on identical facts, but money laundering concerns dealings with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection as untainted property. Whether particular assets are proceeds of crime requires evidentiary adjudication before the Special Court and cannot be decided in proceedings to quash prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, after conviction for the predicate offence, is barred by the protection against double jeopardy.

Analysis: Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prohibits a second trial for the same offence or, in specified circumstances, another offence founded on identical facts. The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 concerns involvement in processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, including their concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection as untainted property. Its ingredients are separate from those of the scheduled or predicate offence. Whether the assets constitute proceeds of crime requires adjudication on evidence before the Special Court and cannot be pre-emptively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 following conviction for the predicate offence does not constitute a second trial for the same offence and is not barred by double jeopardy; the issue is against the petitioners.

---