High Court Rejects Plea in PMLA Case Against Former Noida Chief Engineer's Chartered Accountant

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed Mohan Lal Rathi's plea seeking quashing of a case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The case is linked to a CBI FIR against former Noida chief engineer Yadav Singh and his family for disproportionate assets.

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Mohan Lal Rathi, the chartered accountant of former Noida chief engineer Yadav Singh. The plea sought to quash a case filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The PMLA case stems from an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Singh, his family members and Rathi for possessing disproportionate assets.

Turning Approver Does Not Guarantee Acquittal

Rathi later turned approver in the CBI case. However, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of a Lucknow bench observed that being granted pardon under Section 306 of CrPC in one offence does not automatically result in acquittal in another offence under PMLA. This is unless the accused also seeks pardon for offences under PMLA and makes full disclosure regarding all circumstances within his knowledge related to it.

Dismissal Of Plea

The bench dismissed Rathi’s petition which had sought quashing of the ongoing PMLA proceedings conducted in a special court constituted under this Act. In his plea, Rathi argued that since he had been pardoned based on turning state's evidence in the main multi-crore disproportionate assets case, he should be acquitted from charges under PMLA as well.

Implications Of The Order

This order has significant implications for other cases where individuals have been charged with multiple offences across different laws. It clarifies that securing pardon or becoming an approver in one crime does not exempt them from facing trial or punishment for other crimes they may be implicated in unless explicit pardons are secured for each crime separately.

Judicial Precedent Set

This ruling sets important judicial precedent, reinforcing the principle that each crime is unique and must be treated independently. It also underlines the need for accused individuals to fully disclose all relevant information regarding every offence they are implicated in if they wish to seek pardon.

In conclusion, this case highlights the complexity of legal proceedings when multiple charges are involved. It underscores the importance of comprehensive disclosure by an accused person seeking pardon. Furthermore, it reinforces that a pardon granted in one case does not automatically translate into acquittal from other offences unless pardons are sought explicitly for each offence separately. This ruling reiterates the sanctity of law and order, asserting that no individual can evade justice through loopholes or technicalities.