Prima facie allegations defeat discharge when the court need not assess evidence or defence at the Section 245(2) stage.

Discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC is unavailable in a PMLA prosecution where the complaint and accompanying material disclose prima facie allegations against the accused. The court held that, at the discharge stage, it is not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the prosecution material or assess the admissibility and ultimate reliability of the evidence. Since the complaint contained specific averments and the prosecution relied on statements attributed to the accused and a co-accused, the accused had to face trial and their defence could not be examined at that stage. The refusal to discharge was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when the complaint and material on record disclosed prima facie allegations against them.

Analysis: The complaint contained specific averments against the petitioners and the prosecution relied on statements attributed to the petitioners and a co-accused to support their role. At the stage of considering discharge under Section 245(2), the court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the prosecution material or evaluate the admissibility and ultimate validity of the evidence. Once prima facie allegations are made out, the accused must face trial and their defence cannot be assessed at that stage.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to discharge and the order refusing discharge was sustained.

---