STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir High Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by Irshad Ahmed Sheikh and others challenging the proceedings in trial court in money laundering case.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing petitions, observed that the offence of money laundering involves the act of indulging in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. So far as the offences under ULA (P) Act, for which the petitioners have booked, are concerned, they relate to using of funds of an unlawful association, raising funds for unlawful association and being a member of a terrorist organization. These offences are clearly distinguishable from the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the petitioners have been subjected to double jeopardy by initiating prosecution against them under the provisions of the PMLA.
Justice Sanjay Dhar further observed that according to observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that even if a criminal activity has been committed before the same had been notified as a scheduled offence for the purpose of the PLMA, still then if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, the said person is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, merely because the predicate offence in the instant case dates back to a period when such offence was not incorporated in the Schedule to the PLMA, it cannot be stated that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the PMLA. Apart from the above, the petitioners besides facing trial for the offences under ULA(P) Act, are also facing trial for offence under Section 121-A of RPC. The offence under Section 121-A of IPC, which is in pari materia with Section 121-A of the RPC, was a scheduled offence even prior to the Amendment Act of 2009. On this ground also, the petitioners cannot claim that they could not have been prosecuted for offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, the court observed.
