New Delhi, Jul 13 (PTI) A Delhi court on Monday dismissed a complaint against former MP Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda and others for money laundering offences regarding the alleged irregularities in the allocation of the Bander coal block in Maharashtra.

Holding that the allocation of coal blocks was part of a "policy decision" of a high-powered panel and the PMO, the special CBI court had acquitted former Darda and others on March 27.

Bringing down the curtains on the oldest pending coal block allocation case registered on March 27, 2014, Special Judge Sunena Sharma had also acquitted M/s AMR Iron and Steel Private Limited, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and others.

In its order, the court said on Monday, "In the light of the trial of underlying predicate offences ending up in acquittal, the very basis of the present proceedings for the offence under Section 3 (offence of money laundering) read with Section 70 (offences by companies), punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has vanished. In view thereof, present proceedings are dropped, and the complaint is dismissed." The court said that although the offence of money laundering is independent and distinct from the scheduled offence, the survival of said offence depends upon the existence of the scheduled offence and proceeds of crime.

"Once the accused stands acquitted for the scheduled offence, there arises no question of the existence of any proceeds of crime," it said. PTI MNR MNR KSS KSS RT RT

Money laundering proceedings fail when acquittal in the scheduled offence removes the basis for alleging proceeds of crime. Money laundering proceedings arising from the Bander coal block allocation were terminated because the underlying predicate offences had already ended in acquittal. The central legal point reported is that, while money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a distinct offence, its survival depends on the continued existence of the scheduled offence and proceeds of crime. Once acquittal in the scheduled offence removed that foundation, the complaint under Section 3 read with Section 70, punishable under Section 4, was dropped and dismissed.