- (1.) I have heard all parties at length. This writ petition seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called "the Act"), on the ground that such proceedings are violative of fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 20 (I) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The argument has been negatived by another reasoned order passed today in the connected case being W.P. (Cr.) No. 325 of 2010. A copy of that order will accompany the certified copy of this order. In this particular case, there is an additional fact pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that out of the several offences mentioned in the complaint, the offences under Sections 7 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 were existing in the Schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act even prior to 1.6.2009 and, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the money earned was as a result of an act which was not a scheduled offence on the date it was committed.
(3.) In view of the above, it is not necessary to examine the petitioner's argument whether the offence under Section 3 of the Act is or is not a 'continuing offence'. However, it may be observed that an act does not become a 'continuing offence' merely because it's effect continues to be felt subsequently. However if there are subsequent acts of omission or commission in furtherance or continuation of the offence, which are prohibited by the penal law the offence is continuing. As mentioned in the judgment given today in the connected writ petition being W.P. (Cr) No. 325 of 2010, there are subsequent overt acts attributed towards "laundering" of the tainted money, which were being continued after 1.6.2009.;