SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for setting aside the order dtd. 7/2/2025, Annexure P-19, passed by the trial Court, dismissing the petitioner's application to defer further proceedings of the case bearing CIS No.COMA-1-2022 arising out of ECIR/02/STF/2021, dtd. 21/1/2021. The defennent was sought on the ground that further proceedings in the scheduled/predicate offence, i.e., FIR No.35 dtd. 5/3/2015, registered under Ss. 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 61 of the NDPS Act, Ss. 25/54 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka, remained stayed in tenns of interim order, dtd. 10/4/2024, passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2100 of 2024.

(2.) The petition has been filed on the following facts:

(3.) In this factual background, Mr. Chaudhri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that despite answering of reference by the Supreme Court in the petitioner's favour and quashing of proceedings against him under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., the State has illegally arrested him and also filed chargesheet against him under the scheduled offence. Both, validity of the arrest and prosecution of the petitioner, are under challenge before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2100 of 2024, wherein the prosecution itself has made a statement not to continue with further proceedings before the trial Court. Accordingly, there is no justification to continue the trial under the PMLA. The law in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, (2023) 12 SCC 1. He also relied upon a judgment by the Telangana High Court in M/s Bharti Cement Corporation Private Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement, rendered in Criminal Revision Case No.87 of 2021, decided on 8/9/2022, holding that outcome of the trial for the scheduled offence would have a definite bearing on the outcome of the trial for the offence of money laundering. And it would be in the interest of justice if the Special Court trying the offence of money laundering while independently proceeding with the trial, may, however take a pause and await the ultimate pronouncement/decision of the Special Court trying the scheduled offence. He, accordingly, submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case this Court grants stay on pronouncement of final judgment by the trial Court, though proceedings may continue.