ORDER : (S.M. Subramaniam, J.) (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to set aside the order dated 20.12.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.4079 of 2017 in C.C.No.42 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and allow the same.) The present petition has been instituted to challenge the order dated 20.12.2017, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4079 of 2017 in C.C.No.42 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2. The petitioners are Accused 1 and Accused 2. Based on the scheduled offence Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 [hereinafter referred as 'PMLA'], and the Enforcement Directorate launched an investigation. Upon completing the investigation, a compliant was filed under provisions of PMLA before the Competent Court of Law. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent now brought to the notice of this Court that charges have been framed, trial has commenced and examination of witnesses is underway, with half of the witnesses already examined. In light of these developments, the present criminal revision case is to be rejected. 4. Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged offence of money laundering in the present case was committed prior to the commencement of PMLA. Therefore, the initiation of proceeding under the provisions of the PMLA itself is untenable. 5. Regarding the said ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others, [2022] SCC Online SC 929, the Apex Court ruled as follows: “270. Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but 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, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money-laundering under the 2002 Act — for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of Clause (ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.” 6. The existence of proceeds of crime, even after inclusion of scheduled offence, is sufficient to initiate proceedings under the PMLA. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the scheduled offence was inserted subsequently, after the alleged commission of the offence. The alleged predicate offence was committed prior to the PMLA amendment. However, the date of commission of offence is irrelevant, as the existence of the offence after the amendment and insertion of scheduled offence is sufficient for prosecuting a person under PMLA. 7. However, the other grounds raised on merits in the present case deserves no further adjudication, as trial has already commenced. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court. 7. However, the other grounds raised on merits in the present case deserves no further adjudication, as trial has already commenced. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is requested to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made relating to facts in this order. 8. With these observations, this Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.