New Delhi, Jul 13 (PTI) In a significant development, a Delhi court on Monday trashed a complaint against former MP Vijay Darda, his son Devendra and others for money laundering offences arising from a case related to alleged irregularities in the allocation of Bander coal block in Maharashtra.

Special Judge Sunena Sharma was hearing the applications of former MP Vijay Jawaharlal Darda, his son Devendra Kumar Darda, AMR Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and others seeking the "dropping" of the present Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings against them.

The court noted that the CBI had alleged that Rs 24.60 crore was paid as illegal gratification by Jayaswal to Vijay Darda on behalf of AMR, which has been treated as "proceeds of crime" by the ED in the present case.

It said that the CBI's allegation, however, had been rejected by the court on March 27 this year while acquitting the former MP and others in the oldest pending coal block allocation case.

"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," the court said.

It said that once an accused had been acquitted of the scheduled offence, there arose no question of the existence of any proceeds of crime.

The court underlined the Supreme Court's mandate that after discharge or acquittal of an accused in the predicate offence, no proceedings can continue in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

It noted that in several cases, the apex court has quashed the prosecution and attachment under PMLA since there was an acquittal for the predicate offence.

"Indisputably, the very foundation of the present proceedings, i.e, the scheduled offences registered by CBI, which led to the filing of chargesheet in CBI case, has been demolished after this court vide its judgment dated March 27, 2026, acquitted all the accused including the accused Vijay Darda and Devendra Darda, M/s AMR, and Manoj Kumar Jayaswal...," the court said.

It said that the statutory period for filing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal had expired and ED's prosecutor had not mentioned the details of the appeal, if any, filed by the CBI before any superior court.

"The entire edifice of the present proceedings was built on the predicate offences. Considering the fact that this court in the aforementioned judgment (of March 27) has arrived at a conclusive finding that CBI has failed to establish its case regarding commission of any of the alleged predicate offences, the continuation of the present proceedings shall be nothing but a futile exercise," the court said.

Judge Sharma said the lack of any specific provision in the procedural code will not create any embargo to drop the proceedings because, after the judgment of acquittal in the predicate FIR, the court ceases to have the very jurisdiction to continue with the present proceedings PMLA.

"Thus, 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 PMLA, has vanished. In view thereof, present proceedings are dropped and the complaint is dismissed," the judge said.

The court said that the agency is at liberty to get the proceedings reopened if the acquittal judgment is set aside or varied in any manner in favour of ED.

In its earlier acquittal verdict, the court had said, "Once it is held that Vijay Darda had no role to play in the allocation of the coal block, the very foundation of the prosecution case regarding payment of illegal gratification collapses." It had said that in the absence of any role attributable to Vijay Darda in securing the allocation of Bander Coal Block to AMR, there was neither any occasion nor any plausible motive for the company to pay any illegal gratification to him.

"In the absence of any credible evidence establishing the alleged purpose of the transactions as illegal gratification and in view of the categorical finding that accused 2 Vijay Darda had no role in the allocation of Bander Coal Block to the accused 4, AMR the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge relating to illegal gratification arising out of the aforesaid transactions," the court had said.

It had underlined that allocation of coal blocks was part of a "policy decision" of a high-powered panel and the PMO. PTI MNR MNR KSS KSS