Money-laundering cognizance and non-bailable warrants were not stayed absent any prima facie ground for interference.

A challenge to a cognizance order and consequential non-bailable warrants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was rejected because no prima facie ground was shown to suspend either order. The court noted that the complaint was said to lack disclosure of a scheduled offence or material linking the petitioners to money-laundering, but the opposing view emphasised the limited scope of revisional interference, the discretionary power to issue process under the Criminal Procedure Code, the seriousness of economic offences, and the cognizable, non-bailable character of the offence. The impugned order was treated as reasoned and based on the material before the court, and the stay applications failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners made out a prima facie case for staying the cognizance order dated 12.07.2021 and the consequential non-bailable warrants issued against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the contention that the complaint did not disclose a scheduled offence or material connecting the petitioners with money-laundering, and that the court below ought not to have directly issued non-bailable warrants. The opposing side relied on the limited scope of revisional interference, the discretionary power under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the seriousness of economic offences, and the statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the cognizable and non-bailable character of the offence and the presumption under Section 24. The order under challenge was found to be a reasoned one, passed after considering the material on record and the gravity of the allegations, and no prima facie ground was shown to suspend either the cognizance order or the warrants. The Court also noted that non-bailable warrants may be issued where the court is satisfied about the necessity of securing attendance, particularly in serious offences.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to interim stay of the cognizance order or the non-bailable warrants, and the stay applications failed.

---