Money Laundering Proceedings and Cognizance Orders upheld where prima facie material and prior inter partes ruling existed

Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were discussed as capable of continuing independently where money laundering and proceeds of crime are alleged, even though the challenge rested on the absence of a scheduled predicate offence at the time of the transaction. The text notes that the earlier inter partes decision had already rejected that objection and that the matter was not reopened. It also states that a cognizance order need not contain elaborate reasons if it shows consideration of the complaint and supporting material and discloses a prima facie basis to proceed. The challenged cognizance and summons were therefore treated as legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were liable to be quashed on the ground that the alleged predicate offences were not scheduled offences on the date of the transaction and that the Act could not be applied retrospectively; (ii) Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was vitiated for want of sufficient application of mind and reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were liable to be quashed on the ground that the alleged predicate offences were not scheduled offences on the date of the transaction and that the Act could not be applied retrospectively.

Analysis: The challenge to the money-laundering proceedings was considered against the scheme of the Act, the earlier coordinate Bench decision between the same parties, and the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the earlier coordinate Bench had already rejected the contention that the absence of a scheduled offence at the relevant time barred action under the Act. It also proceeded on the basis that money laundering is a distinct and continuing offence, and that the relevant inquiry is the act of laundering and the handling of proceeds of crime, not merely the date of the predicate offence. In view of judicial discipline, and since the same issue was already adjudicated inter partes, the Court declined to reopen the matter in these petitions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the initiation and continuation of proceedings under the Act failed, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was vitiated for want of sufficient application of mind and reasons.

Analysis: The cognizance order recorded that the complaint was by an authorised public servant, that the complaint and documents in two volumes were perused, and that sufficient prima facie material existed against the accused. The Court applied the settled distinction that, where cognizance is taken on a police report or comparable material, the Magistrate or Special Judge is not required to pass a detailed reasoned order so long as the order reflects consideration of the material and the existence of sufficient ground to proceed. The Court held that the impugned order disclosed application of mind and was consistent with the governing principles on cognizance, summons, and curable irregularities.

Conclusion: The cognizance order and summons were held to be valid, and the challenge to them was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were not fit for interference, as the money-laundering challenge was barred by the existing inter partes determination and the cognizance order was found to be legally sustainable on the materials before the Special Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can proceed independently where the act of money laundering and proceeds of crime are alleged, and a cognizance order based on a report need not contain elaborate reasons if it shows consideration of the material and a prima facie basis to proceed.

---