DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [Petitioner] Vs. AKHILESH SINGH & ORS. [Respondents]
(CRL.REV.P. 1199/2023 & CRL.M.A. 34025/2023)
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN)
Facts: The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-10, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi in CT Case 30/2019 arising out of RC: ECIR/06/HIU/2017 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘PMLA’), whereby the respondents were discharged for the offences alleged in the complaint filed by the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement (in short ‘ED’).
Issue: Whether the properties attached by the petitioner/ED on the premise that the same are proceeds of crime could be released notwithstanding the pendency of appeal preferred against the order of acquittal in the scheduled offence?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:
Mr. Anurag Jain, learned Special Counsel for the petitioner/ED submits that though the respondents have been discharged from the offence of money laundering on the ground that they have been acquitted in the predicate offence registered vide FIR No.21/2017 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC at PS Birsanagar Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) but the said judgment of acquittal has not attained finality, inasmuch as an appeal being Crl.A. 252/2023 has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand before the learned District and Sessions Court, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand and the same is still pending. It is contended that the acquittal of the respondent in predicate offence shall attain finality only after it has been affirmed by the appellate court, as well as, by the Courts in the higher hierarchical tiers.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel that once a person is acquitted, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened and filing or pendency of an appeal against the acquittal cannot be considered as a continuation of trial / prosecution.
Held: The court dismissed the present petition and holds that, “no proceedings under the PMLA could be sustained after the acquittal of the respondent nos.1 and 2 in the predicate offence. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 09.10.2023 has rightly discharged the respondents herein from the offences under the PMLA. Likewise, there is no infirmity in the order dated 07.11.2023 whereby the attached movable and immovable properties were directed to be released by the learned Special Judge.”
