Revisional interference at cognizance is limited, and non-bailable process may stand where lesser warrants would not secure appearance.

Revisional interference with a cognizance order under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is confined to cases of perversity, illegality, lack of jurisdiction, or manifest irregularity, and the court at cognizance only verifies whether the complaint and material disclose grounds to proceed; on that basis, the cognizance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was upheld because the material disclosed alleged laundering activity and involvement in proceeds of crime. The court also reiterated that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is independent and stand-alone. On warrants, refusal to convert arrest warrants into bailable warrants was sustained because issuance of process depends on the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's conduct, and whether lesser process would secure appearance, and no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the refusal to convert arrest warrants into bailable warrants was illegal.

Issue (i): Whether the order taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and is not meant for reappreciation of material at the stage of cognizance unless the impugned order is perverse, illegal, without jurisdiction, or suffers from manifest irregularity. At the cognizance stage, the court is concerned only with whether the complaint and supporting material disclose sufficient grounds to proceed. The complaint and accompanying material were found to disclose allegations of laundering of proceeds of crime and involvement of the accused in activities connected with such proceeds. The Court also held that the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an independent and stand-alone offence, and that the explanation added to the provision did not alter its basic ingredients or render the prosecution incompetent at the relevant stage.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was upheld and no revisional interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to convert arrest warrants into bailable warrants was illegal.

Analysis: The power to issue warrants must be exercised with care, but the nature of the allegations, the seriousness of the economic offence, the conduct of the accused, and the need to secure of the accused are relevant considerations. Non-bailable warrants are not to be issued mechanically, yet they may be justified where the court is satisfied that summons or bailable process would not secure appearance. On the facts, the trial court had considered the nature of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, and the societal impact of the alleged offences before refusing conversion of the warrants. No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in that exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The refusal to convert the arrest warrants into bailable warrants was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cognizance order and the ancillary challenge to the warrant orders both failed, and the proceedings were left to continue before the trial court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of cognizance and in revisional review, interference is justified only where the order is perverse or without jurisdiction, and in proceedings for securing an accused's presence, the court may issue non-bailable process where the circumstances show that lesser process would not suffice.

---