Facts
The Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint under Sections 43 and 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which was taken on file as Spl. C.C. No. 12 of 2023.
Source reference: p. 5The complaint arose from an ECIR registered following a predicate case in Crime No. 19 of 2012, taken on file as Spl. Case No. 3 of 2019, involving alleged scheduled offences.
Source reference: p. 5On 2 April 2026, the trial court acquitted all accused in the predicate case.
Source reference: p. 8The petitioners, who were accused in the PMLA complaint, sought its quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), arguing that the acquittal meant the PMLA proceedings could not survive.
Source reference: p. 5–6, 8Issues
1. Whether, following the acquittal of all accused in the predicate case, the PMLA complaint in Spl. C.C. No. 12 of 2023 could proceed against the petitioners.
Source reference: p. 6–82. Whether the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS in light of the predicate-case acquittal.
Source reference: p. 4, 10Law Applied
The petitions were brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to seek quashing of the pending proceedings.
Source reference: p. 4The PMLA complaint had been filed under Sections 43 and 44 of the PMLA.
Source reference: p. 5The Court relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2023) 12 SCC 1, and applied it to conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, the PMLA proceedings could not continue once the predicate case had ended in acquittal.
Source reference: p. 6, 8Reasoning
The Court noted that the PMLA proceedings originated from the ECIR registered on the basis of the predicate case and that all accused in that case had been acquitted by judgment dated 2 April 2026.
Source reference: p. 7–8Applying Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, and considering that the predicate case against the petitioners had ended in acquittal, the Court held that the PMLA complaint could not be allowed to proceed against them.
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The High Court allowed all five petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in Spl. C.C. No. 12 of 2023 pending before the Special Court for PMLA Cases, Chennai.
It left open the Directorate of Enforcement’s right to take appropriate steps in accordance with law if a subsequent decision is taken in the predicate case.
Source reference: p. 8Acts & Sections Cited
8 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 20022
Indian Penal Code, 18604
Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
K.PonmudyvsAssistant Director,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Recovery of excess payments from a retired employee is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation.. KAMAL AFSAR vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY. CAT - ['Allahabad']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/recovery-of-excess-payments-from-a-retired-employee-is-impermissible-absent-fraud-or-misre-4855cd93e9854b14922eda694d0bc8e1.webp)
