BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by 11 accused contending that continuing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) amounts to double jeopardy as they have already been convicted for offences under the IPC for exchange of old currency notes for new ones for a premium after demonetisation in 2016.
The court observed that the proceedings under PMLA are a prosecution of an independent statutory offence in which the petitioners have to come out clean in full-blown proceedings before the special court as prohibition under Section 300 of the CrPC extends only to a second trial for the same offence and not to a prosecution for a distinct offence under another enactment.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order dismissing the petition filed by 11 accused, challenging the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA.
The accused are Dilip A aka JCB Dilipa; Ananda DB aka CCTV Ananda; Rajesh DM aka Raji; Ananda aka Mysurammana Mommaga; Umesh RK aka Bonda; Channakeshava C aka Sanju; Cheluvaraju CS aka Onduvare; Mahadevaswamy DR aka Keera; Purushothma aka Purushi; Babu DG and Ramalinga aka Buka, from Mysuru and Mandya districts.
A case was registered against them for exchanging old notes for new ones, and they were convicted. They preferred an appeal against the conviction, and the same is pending before the court concerned.
Simultaneously, on the predicate offence being registered in 2016 against the petitioners, ED had registered a case under PMLA for which the proceedings are in progress. The petitioners contended through this petition that it amounts to double jeopardy on the grounds that Section 300 of the CrPC prohibits a second trial for the same offences.
The ED contended that the same trial for the same offence would mean, under the same penal code, the IPC; it would not mean that a person cannot be tried under a different statute for a different offence under PMLA.
The court noted that the offence under PMLA derives its existence from the laundering of proceeds of crime. Though emanating from the commission of a predicate offence, when an accused is convicted for the scheduled offence/predicate offence, the subsequent prosecution under PMLA does not amount to a second trial for the same offence, the court said.