Revisional challenge to summons in money-laundering case succeeds where complaint lacks prima facie material of knowing projection of tainted funds as untainted.

An order taking cognizance and issuing summons is not a purely interlocutory order when it decides to summon an accused, so revision is maintainable. In money-laundering proceedings, the complaint must disclose prima facie material showing knowing involvement in a process connected with proceeds of crime and projection or claim of such property as untainted. Mere receipt or handling of funds is insufficient, and the material before the Special Court did not establish the requisite knowledge or mens rea. Later statements of a co-accused could not cure that defect, so the summoning order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order taking cognizance and issuing summons could be challenged in revision as an interlocutory order. (ii) Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case of money-laundering against the petitioners so as to justify cognizance and summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether an order taking cognizance and issuing summons could be challenged in revision as an interlocutory order.

Analysis: An order issuing process is not treated as a purely interlocutory order when it decides to summon an accused. Revisional jurisdiction is available against such an order, and the Court can examine whether the summoning order was passed after due application of mind and on sufficient material.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case of money-laundering against the petitioners so as to justify cognizance and summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Offence of money-laundering under Section 3 requires not merely receipt or handling of funds, but involvement in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime together with concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection/claim of such property as untainted. The material before the Special Court did not disclose prima facie evidence that the petitioners had knowledge that the funds were proceeds of crime or that they knowingly projected them as untainted. The statements and surrounding material were found insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea or culpable knowledge, and the later statements of a co-accused could not cure the deficiency in the original material.

Conclusion: The impugned order taking cognizance and issuing summons was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the summoning order was quashed as against the petitioners, with the Court leaving the merits of attachment and the alleged laundering trail to be decided in the appropriate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For cognizance of money-laundering, the complaint must disclose prima facie material showing knowing involvement in a process connected with proceeds of crime and projection of such property as untainted; absent such material, a revisional court may set aside the summons order.

---