Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s Plea to Defer PMLA Trial, Says Money Laundering is an Independent Offence
Case Name: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-17884-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s petition seeking deferment of trial proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with alleged drug money transactions. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the PMLA offence is standalone and independent of the scheduled NDPS offences, and the ongoing stay of the predicate offence trial before the Supreme Court does not justify halting the PMLA proceedings. The Court reaffirmed that prosecution under Section 3 of the PMLA can continue so long as the scheduled offence exists, even if the accused in the PMLA case was not directly charged in the predicate offence.
Summary: The petitioner argued that since the Supreme Court had stayed the NDPS case proceedings (FIR No. 35 of 2015, Police Station Sadar Jalalabad), the trial under the PMLA should also be deferred. He relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and M/s Bharti Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, contending that the outcome of the scheduled offence directly affects the money-laundering trial. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), however, opposed the plea, asserting that PMLA offences are autonomous and grounded in international anti-laundering obligations. The ED argued that Gurdev Singh, co-accused in the NDPS case, had already been convicted, establishing the existence of proceeds of crime used by Khaira. Citing Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, the ED maintained that Khaira’s PMLA prosecution remains unaffected by his status in the NDPS case.
Justice Dahiya agreed with the ED, holding that while the existence of a scheduled offence is a sine qua non for invoking PMLA, the person prosecuted for money laundering need not necessarily be an accused in the scheduled offence. The Court distinguished Bharti Cement on facts, observing that since Gurdev Singh’s conviction for drug trafficking stands, the PMLA proceedings against Khaira can proceed independently. Accordingly, the Court refused to stay or defer the PMLA trial, upholding that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in continuing the proceedings despite the stay in the predicate case.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no legal ground to stall the PMLA trial. It reiterated that money laundering constitutes an independent offence based on the process and activity related to proceeds of crime, and therefore, the pending NDPS appeal or stay order cannot impede PMLA prosecution.