Bombay HC Issues Notice On Anil Deshmukh’s Plea To Fast-Track CBI Trial That Forms Basis Of ED Case

The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and the Maharashtra government on a plea filed by former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh seeking a time-bound and expedited hearing of the corruption case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), contending that the outcome of the said case has a direct bearing on the money laundering proceedings initiated against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Court took note of the submission that the ED’s prosecution is predicated on the CBI’s FIR and that prolonged delay in the trial of the predicate offence results in continued prejudice to the accused.

Notices were issued to the respondents, while granting time for them to place their stand on record regarding the relief sought for fast-tracking the CBI proceedings.

The Bench indicated that the matter raises issues concerning the interplay between predicate offences and PMLA prosecutions and posted the plea for further hearing after the respondents file their responses.

In his petition, Deshmukh has sought directions for the expeditious conduct of the CBI trial, arguing that the scheduled offence forms the very foundation of the ED’s case.

It has been contended that unless the predicate offence is adjudicated within a reasonable time, the accused would continue to face parallel proceedings under the PMLA without clarity on the underlying criminal liability.

The plea proceeds on the legal position that a money laundering case is intrinsically linked to the existence of proceeds of crime arising from a scheduled offence.

It is Deshmukh’s case that an inordinate delay in the trial of the CBI case not only affects his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution but also has a cascading effect on the PMLA proceedings.

The petition highlights that the evidence in the PMLA case substantially overlaps with that in the predicate offence and that an early conclusion of the CBI trial would serve the interests of justice by avoiding duplication, prolonged incarceration, and multiplicity of proceedings.

It has further been argued that the right to a speedy trial extends not only to the main prosecution but also to cases that form the foundation of subsequent proceedings.

According to the plea, the continued pendency of the predicate offence effectively keeps the PMLA case in a state of uncertainty, thereby causing serious prejudice.

The development comes in the backdrop of the settled legal position that while proceedings under the PMLA are independent, they are nonetheless contingent upon the existence of a scheduled offence and the generation of “proceeds of crime”.

Courts have repeatedly held that the fate of the predicate offence has a direct impact on the sustainability of money laundering charges.

The High Court’s decision to seek responses from the ED and the State indicates that it will examine whether a direction for expeditious hearing is warranted and, if so, the mechanism through which such a timeline can be ensured without interfering with the domain of the trial court.

The issue also touches upon broader questions of balancing the autonomy of investigative agencies with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial, particularly in cases involving multiple parallel proceedings arising from the same set of allegations.

The matter is expected to be taken up after the respondents file their affidavits, at which stage the Court will consider the prayer for fixing a timeline for the CBI trial and the extent to which such a direction can be issued in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Inputs from FPJ

Case Title: Anil Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.