Clarificatory money-laundering amendment applied retrospectively; prima facie material was enough to refuse discharge.

The Telangana HC treated the 2013 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as clarificatory and not merely prospective, so the explanation inserted by the amendment applied from the inception of the statute and money-laundering was viewed as a continuing activity. On the material before the Court, recovery of cash from A.2's locker, the petitioner's custody of the locker keys, and the supporting documents were sufficient to show prima facie complicity, so discharge under Section 227 CrPC was refused and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge on the ground that the 2013 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was prospective and therefore inapplicable to the alleged offence, and whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of the prosecution.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as clarificatory and not as a merely prospective change. The explanation inserted by the amendment was held to apply to the offence of money-laundering from the inception of the enactment, and the process connected with proceeds of crime was treated as a continuing activity. On the material placed before the Court, the recovery of cash from the locker of A.2, the custody of the locker keys with the petitioner, and the documentary material relied upon by the prosecution were sufficient to show complicity at the threshold stage. The plea for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge, and the revision failed.

---