2019 (3) TMI 2005

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent No.2 -original complainant. 3. Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant points out that the present applicant came to be charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 4 as well as for the offence punishable under scheduled offence of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and argued that though both the proceedings arise out of the same alleged incident, however, in two different sections, offences are made punishable. Consequently, therefore, he has relied upon the decision of the Jharkhand High Court rendered in the case of Binodkumar Sinha @ Binod Kumar; Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamlesh Singh; Anosh Ekka Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2013 LawSuit(Jhar) 26 and argued that when such matter ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ey Laundering Act, there has been no doubt that unless one is held guilty for the scheduled offences, he cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but hardly there appears to any embargo for the special court to proceed with the trial of the scheduled offences as well as offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act simultaneously particularly when there has been nothing in the Act nor intention of the legislator seem to be there of taking of the trial of the offence punishable under Section 4 after one is found guilty for the scheduled offence . Of course, the Special Court trying the offence under the PMLA Act will have to wait for the result of the trial ....