Mumbai Court relies on Supreme Court judgment to discharge accused in PMLA offence after discharge in predicate offence

A Mumbai court on Wednesday discharged two accused persons in a money laundering case after it was pointed out that the investigation into the predicate offence against them had been closed..Following the Supreme Court verdict upholding provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Special Judge MG Deshpande pronounced the verdict today. The apex court had held that acquittal or discharge in the predicate offence or quashing of such offence will lead to acquittal or discharge in the offence of money laundering as well..The accused, Babulal Verma and Kamalkishor Gupta, who are presently out on bail, were booked by the Aurangabad City Police in 2020 based on a first information report (FIR) registered against them for cheating and criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.The same year, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on this FIR..The accused stated in the application filed through advocate Rahul Agarwal that a closure report has been filed in the FIR before the concerned Magistrate and that the complainant has also given a no-objection.In February 2021, the Magistrate took conginzance of the report and accepted closure of the investigation.The ED arrested the accused in January 2021. Their judicial custody was extended from time to time, until earlier last month, when the accused moved the special court opposing the extension of their judicial custody.While posting the matter for final hearing, in the meantime, the Court directed the immediate release of the accused noting that the investigation into the predicate offence against them had been closed.While there was no relief from the High Court on the challenge to this order, the accused moved the special court seeking discharge which was extensively argued and allowed today. .Opposing the application, ED stated that the accused had no locus to file an application seeking their release and the same was not maintainable. Advocate Hiten Venegaonkar, appearing for ED, also contended that the Supreme Court had not considered the situation of scheduled offence being closed due to filing of closure report. .Advocate Vijay Aggarwal for the applicant stated that ED had taken contrary stand as to the clarity of the judgment passed with regard to the issue involved in the present matter. The ED's claim that the Supreme Court judgement is not clear and is debatable is something that they ought to get clarified from the top court, Aggarwal said.