Money-laundering proceedings need proceeds of crime from a scheduled offence; revisional interference with discharge was refused.

Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC was unwarranted because the discharge order disclosed no patent illegality, impropriety, or error, and the revisional court could not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. The court also held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 require material showing a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime. As the record, including the earlier acquittal in the predicate offences, did not establish that the property or cash represented proceeds of crime, mere suspicion or uncorroborated material was insufficient. The challenge to discharge therefore failed and the money-laundering proceedings were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the discharge of the respondents in the money-laundering complaint was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction; (ii) Whether a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime were shown so as to sustain proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the discharge of the respondents in the money-laundering complaint was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The scope of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to examining the correctness, legality, and propriety of the subordinate court's order. The revisional court is not to reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. At the stage of charge, only a prima facie view based on the material on record is required, but where the material does not disclose a reasonable ground to proceed, discharge is justified.

Conclusion: The discharge order did not suffer from any patent illegality, impropriety, or error warranting interference, and the finding was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime were shown so as to sustain proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is predicated on the existence of proceeds of crime arising from a scheduled offence. The material before the court, including the earlier acquittal in the predicate offences, did not establish that the alleged property or cash represented proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. Mere suspicion or uncorroborated material was insufficient to found money-laundering proceedings.

Conclusion: No scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime were established, so the money-laundering proceedings were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the discharge order failed because the foundational requirement for prosecution under the money-laundering law was not made out and no revisional interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for money laundering cannot be sustained unless the material discloses proceeds of crime arising from a scheduled offence, and revisional interference is unwarranted where the discharge order is neither illegal nor improper on the record.

---