 against Dr. Jeevan Kumar and others.){kind=link}
New Delhi: In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, through Hon’ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, has quashed the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Dr. Jeevan Kumar and others. The case, filed under section 397 read with section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertained to charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The background of the case involves an FIR registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 18/19 of The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, related to an alleged kidney transplantation racket. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted the investigation, and a final report was filed, leading to a trial conducted by the court of Sh. Najar Singh, ASJ/Special Judge (CBI), Panchkula, Haryana.
The ED subsequently registered an ECIR based on the purported income derived from Dr. Jeevan Kumar’s alleged criminal activity. The charge under section 4 of PMLA was framed against Dr. Jeevan Kumar by the court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District Judge, and Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
However, Dr. Jeevan Kumar was acquitted of all charges by the trial court on March 22, 2013, and this judgment attained finality as it remained unchallenged. In the recent judgment, the Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order on charge dated April 24, 2012, and all consequential proceedings against Dr. Jeevan Kumar.
The crucial legal question addressed by the High Court was whether the ED’s proceedings could be allowed to continue if the accused had been acquitted or discharged in the predicate offense. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and reiterated that if an accused is discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offense, there can be no offense of money laundering against them.
The judgment emphasized that the ED cannot initiate action against a person for money laundering based on the assumption that the property recovered is the proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offense has been committed. The Court clarified that for the ED to proceed, there must be a subsisting scheduled offense, and if the accused has been discharged or acquitted, no action under PMLA can be taken.
The Hon’ble Court held that,
“In view of the aforesaid legal position, the present complaint filed by the respondent/ED and the consequential proceedings cannot survive. Considering that the co-accused Dr. Jeevan Kumar has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 22.03.2013 and that the said judgment has not been challenged till date, there can be no offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside qua the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stated to be pending before the concerned court.”
The Delhi High Court dismissed the ED’s argument that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, stating that High Courts should proceed to decide matters based on the existing law. The judgment is a significant development, providing clarity on the continuation of ED proceedings in cases of acquittal or discharge in the predicate offense under PMLA.