Petitioner's Revision Petition Dismissed in Money Laundering Case

The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition seeking discharge in a criminal case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Despite the petitioner's argument that witnesses did not implicate him in the alleged conspiracy, the court found substantial documentary evidence linking him to the crime through possession of keys to the bank locker where bribe money was hidden. The court clarified that the amendment to the Act in 2013 was retrospective, making the petitioner liable. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and upheld the decision based on the agreement between the accused regarding bail and the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involves the refusal to discharge the petitioner in a criminal case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 based on the alleged conspiracy to receive bribe money from a bank locker.

Summary:
The petitioner, accused No.1 in the case, sought discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. contending that most witnesses did not implicate him in the alleged conspiracy. However, the Enforcement Directorate argued that there was substantial documentary evidence linking the petitioner to the crime through his possession of the keys to the bank locker where bribe money was hidden. The petitioner's counsel raised a legal point that the PML Act, 2002 was amended in 2013, and the alleged offense occurred before the amendment, thus the Act did not apply. The court, citing a Supreme Court decision, clarified that the amendment was clarificatory and had retrospective effect, making the petitioner liable under Section 3 of the Act. The court noted the agreement between the accused regarding bail and the evidence presented, concluding that the petitioner's involvement was evident, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

This judgment highlights the application of legal provisions, retrospective effect of amendments, and the significance of documentary evidence in determining complicity in a criminal case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---