Further investigation under money-laundering law is limited once trial starts, absent clearly identified fresh material.

Further investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is ordinarily not warranted once cognizance has been taken, charge has been framed, and evidence has begun. The special statutory scheme and the CrPC provisions were considered, but the absence of clearly identified fresh material, including a sufficiently specific link to the alleged proceeds of crime, meant that reopening investigation at that stage was not justified. Fair investigation remains relevant, yet the commencement of trial limits a direction for renewed interrogation in jail or further investigation. The request for such relief was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether further investigation and interrogation of the respondents could be ordered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after charge had been framed and the trial had commenced.

Analysis: The complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was already filed, cognizance had been taken, charge had been framed, and evidence had begun. The Court considered the scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the definition of investigation, the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure where not inconsistent with the special law, and the principle that further investigation is ordinarily available before the trial commences. It also noted that the material placed did not specifically identify the alleged proceeds of crime with sufficient clarity to justify reopening investigation at that stage. While fair investigation remains important, the stage of the proceeding and the special statutory context did not justify directing fresh interrogation inside jail in aid of further investigation.

Conclusion: The prayer for further investigation and for permission to interrogate the respondents in jail was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the trial has commenced in a prosecution complaint under the special money-laundering law, a direction for further investigation is not warranted in the absence of clearly identified fresh material justifying such relief.

---