ORDER : Being unsuccessful before the trial Court to get discharge from the PMLA case, the petitioners herein who are also accused in the scheduled offence registered by CBI, BSFC, Bangalore, are before this Court for the relief through this criminal revision. 2. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Banks Securities & Fraud Cell (BS & FC), Bangalore had registered a case vide FIR No.20 dated 16.10.2018 under Section 120-B , 406, 420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint bearing No.DGM/Zonal Manager dt., 16.10.2018 filed by Shri V.Saminathan, Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Trichy Zone, Trichy for Criminal Conspiracy, Criminal Beach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery for the purpsoe of cheating and using forged documents as genuine by M/s.Cethat Ltd., Regd office at Thuraiyur main road, Peramangalam Village, Pulivalam, Trichy 621 006 and its Chairman Shri K.Subburaj R/o.15 Cethar Garden, K.K.Nagar, Tiruchirapalli 620-021 and Shri N.K.Pothiraj, Managing Director of M/s.Cethar Ltd R/o.30-31, Cethar Gardens, K.K.Nagar Tiruchirapalli 620-021 and unknown persons during the period 2005 to 2018. 3. In the said FIR it is stated that M/s.Cethar Ltd., and its Directors (Petitioners-herein) and unknown persons, systematically committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, using forged documents as genuine and thereby induced the Indian Bank and other member of consortium of the Banks (ICICI Bank, Canara Bank, Andhra Bank, IDBI Bank, State Bank of India, Lakshmi Vilas Bank and Federal Bank), to grant various credit facilities, by suppressing various relevant facts from the knowledge of the banks, availed the credit facilities and subsequently misappropriated the funds thereby causing loss to the extent of Rs. 1344.96 crores to the consortium of the banks. 4. After registration of FIR by CBI for the offences under Sections 406 , 420, 468 and 471 IPC , the enforcement Directorate collected inforamation and being satisfied, proceed under PMLA, registered ECIR No.4/CE ZO-11/2019 on 07.08.1969 and had filed complaint against the company M/s.Cethar Limited and 7 others and the Special Court had taken cognizence in C.C.No.11 of 2022 is posted for framing charges. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the scheduled offence CBI which is the investigating Agency not yet filed the final reprot. Further also to be noted that the petition filed by these petitioners to quash the prosecution was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3086 of 2023 on 10.08.2023. Their discharge petitions before the trial Court dismissed on 10.01.2025. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the scheduled offence CBI which is the investigating Agency not yet filed the final reprot. Further also to be noted that the petition filed by these petitioners to quash the prosecution was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3086 of 2023 on 10.08.2023. Their discharge petitions before the trial Court dismissed on 10.01.2025. Challenging the dismissalof the quash petition, the Criminal Revision Petition is filed. 6. The contention of the petitioners that they are only name lenders and not the active directors or administrators of the company, was negatived by the trial Court. That apart, the plea of the petitioners that their names are not in the FIR registered by CBI in the scheduled offence, therefore, they cannot be ropped in a PMLA case was also did not find acceptable to the trial Court. 7. The trial Court, while dismissing the discharge petition has observed that the complaint and the documents relied by the ED reveals the proceeds of crime generated in the scheduled offence been laundered with the aid and assistance of these petitioners. The material regarding the act of converting tainted money into untainted money to be adjudicated only during the course of the trial. 8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition, the petitioners are before this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners sbumitted that the complaint of the Zonal Manager Indian Bank, Trichy, to the CBI Banks Securities and Fraud Cell, Bangalore, was only against M/s.Cethar Limited and its Chairman and the Managing Director, for the alleged criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and using forged document as geninune. The said Company had undergone liquidation before NCLT and debts discharged. The Banks had given certified that the loan accounts are not fraud accounts. Hence, CBI even after six years not closed the investigation. While so, the petitioners, who are the family members of A2 and A3 and drawn remuneration as directors of the Company been prosecuted for money lendering even without their name been mentioned as accused in the scheduled offence. 10. The FIR regisered by CBI on 16.10.2018 till date had not seen the light of the day and there is no progress in the investigation. 10. The FIR regisered by CBI on 16.10.2018 till date had not seen the light of the day and there is no progress in the investigation. When there is no ingredient of money laundering and no proceeds of crime identified in the predicate offence forcing the petitioners to undergo RDL of criminal prosecution in the money laundering case is absolute traversty on law. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submited that if, in case, the CBI drop action without filing final report, the ordeal of the petitioners facing trial in the PMLA case will be irreversible. Further, he submitted that on merits, there is no material to attribute the petitioners for offence under PMLA Act, since they are no way connected to the alleged prosecution of crime. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically submitted that the loan amount payable by the company already discharged on liquidation of the Company. After discharging debt to the tune of Rs.895.45 crores, only a sum of Rs.72.35 crores to be paid even according to the forensic audit report. While so, knowing well that there is no proceeds of crime identified in the predicate offence and the investigation in the predicate offence had not proceeded, merely relying upon the statements of the petitioners recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the enforcement Directorate proceeding with the trial under the PMLA. 13. A detailed counter filed by the Department stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a consistant view that the economic offence had been deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously. Language of Section 3 of PMLA Act is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is a independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to scheduled offence. It is needless that the accused in PMLA offence should also be an accused in the scheduled offence case. While so, pending investigation of the scheduled offence, the money laundering case can proceed and there is no legal impediment. 14. It is needless that the accused in PMLA offence should also be an accused in the scheduled offence case. While so, pending investigation of the scheduled offence, the money laundering case can proceed and there is no legal impediment. 14. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Department submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary -vs- Union of India , reported in 2022 SCC Online 929 SC , had categorically laid down that the money lendering Act is a stand alone Act and therefore, it can proceed dehors of the stage of the scheduled offence. Only if in the scheduled offence accused is acquitted, discharged or his case against him is quashed, PMLA case, cannot independently proceed. He also submitted that the registration of a scheduled offence is a prerequesite to initiate the proceedings under PMLA. However, it is only a triger to initiate action under PMLA. Thereafter, investigation and offence of money laundaring became independent to be dealt under the provisions of the PMLA. 15. In Pavana Dibbur -vs- the Directorate of Enforcement, dated 29.11.2023 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified and explained that the accused in PMLA proceedings need not be an accused in the scheduled offence. 16. Therefore, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that the factual aspects of the case and the value of the statement made by the petitioners under Section 50 of the PMLA had already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court, when they approached this Court to quash the complaint. Therefore, they cannot re-agitate the same issue under the guise of discharge petition. He further submitted that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS is to the limited extent whether there is a prima facie material to frame charge. 17. In the case in hand the enquiry conducted by the enforcement Directorate had yielded material for prima facie satisfaction that jewellery and landed properties were purchased by these petitioners from out of the proceeds of crime generated by availaing loan in the name of M/s.Cethar Limited, by producing forged documents. 17. In the case in hand the enquiry conducted by the enforcement Directorate had yielded material for prima facie satisfaction that jewellery and landed properties were purchased by these petitioners from out of the proceeds of crime generated by availaing loan in the name of M/s.Cethar Limited, by producing forged documents. The factum that more than 1600 crores of rupees remained as unpaid debt leading to declaring the company as NPA and later liquidating it by due process of law, may requires further intensive probe, Hence, the delay in completion of the investigation by CBI for the schduled offence cannot be a reason in the PMLA cae and proceed for the enforcement Directorate to defer with their investigation. 18. .It is settled principles of law that in revisional jurisdiction only if there are error appearnt on record and grave injustice caused, the High Court shall not interfere infer in the process of trial. Though facts and records relied by the enforcement Directorate is disputed and controverted they are matter for trial. While so, when the enforcement Directorate is able to produce the document which prima facie prove the fundamental facts to attracts Section 3 of the PMLA, this Court finds no merits in this revision. 19. While dismissing the discharge revision, this Court is duty bound to record that in Bharathi Cement Corporation -vs- The Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3559 , the Hon'ble Telangana High Court relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, has held that the offence under Section 3 of PMLA depends on illegal possession of property, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. If a person is finally discharged/acquitted or the scheduled offence of criminal case against him is quashed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering caused by him or by anyone claiming the said property. Though the trial related to the offence of money laundering can proceed independent of the trial of scheduled offence, nonetheless the outcome of the trial of the scheduled offence would have a definite bearing on the outcome of the trial for the offence of money laundering. Though the trial related to the offence of money laundering can proceed independent of the trial of scheduled offence, nonetheless the outcome of the trial of the scheduled offence would have a definite bearing on the outcome of the trial for the offence of money laundering. It would be in the interest of the justice, if the Special Court trying the offence of money laundering, while independently proceeding with the trial, may, however take a pause and wait till the ultimate pronouncement of the Special Court trying the scheduled offence. 20. It is informed by the bar that the Enforcement Directorate had withdrawn their SLP before the Supreme Court filed against the judgment of the Telangana High Court in Bharati Cements Case. This Court endorsed the view of the Telangana High Court in Bharathi Cement Corporation Ltd., case since the said proposition holds the field as on date. The stage of pause will arise only before passing judgment in the PMLA case, if the trial in the scheduled offence not completed or reached its logical end. In any case, the pendency of investigation of the scheduled offence being the pre-request for registering ECIR cannot be reason a to discharge the accused in PMLA. 21. In view of the above observations, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.