S P RAJENDRAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is seen from the records that the schedule offence was investigated by the District Crime Branch, Karur in Crime No.6 of 2013 and a final report has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.3 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 409, 420, 416, 201 and 109 I.P.C. In this case, admittedly the trial is yet to commence.

(2.) Parallely, the respondent has proceeded to register ECIR in the year 2015 and subsequently a complaint has been filed before the Special Court for an alleged offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act punishable under Section 4 of the Act. (herein after referred to as PMLA Act).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint, since an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act will come into play, only after the trial and disposal of the case which is pending in C.C.No.3 of 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if in case the Special Court proceeds further to decide the case and convicts the petitioners and at a later point of time, the court which is dealing with the schedule offence, acquits the petitioners, the petitioners will be put to untold hardship.