Money-laundering summons may proceed despite later inclusion of predicate offence, with retrospective challenge rejected at the threshold.

Summons under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act could not be interfered with at the threshold merely because the alleged predicate offence under Section 420 IPC was added as a scheduled offence later. The Court treated the timing question as a mixed issue of law and fact and held that the authorities were entitled to examine the materials and determine whether the ingredients of money-laundering were made out, including whether proceeds of crime were projected as untainted property. The plea of retrospective application of a penal provision was not accepted as a basis to stop the investigation, and the challenge to the summons was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summons issued under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be interfered with on the ground that the alleged predicate offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was included as a scheduled offence only later and that the Act could not be applied retrospectively.

Analysis: The Act empowers the authorities to investigate money-laundering and to examine whether proceeds of crime have been projected as untainted property. The dispute did not admit of decision merely on the basis of pleadings because the appellant had not produced the summoned documents and the authority was entitled to examine the materials and determine whether the ingredients of money-laundering were made out. The question whether the relevant date is the date of acquisition of illicit money or the date of its laundering was treated as a mixed question of law and fact requiring investigation. The plea against retrospective application of a penal provision was not accepted as a ground to stop the investigation at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summons was rejected and the authority's jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation was upheld.

---