Charge-framing in money laundering cases requires only prima facie material; HC upheld proceedings against the petitioner.

At the discharge and charge-framing stage under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court accepts the prosecution material at face value and only asks whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists; it does not conduct a mini trial or weigh defence material. Applying that standard, the HC found no legal error in the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge, because the investigation record showed a scheduled offence, fake invoices, receipt of disputed funds, and transfer of those funds into related entities controlled by the petitioner. The petitioner's role as director and controlling person was sufficiently indicated, so a prima facie case for trial was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 suffered from legal error. (ii) Whether the materials collected in investigation disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 suffered from legal error.

Analysis: The governing test at the stage of discharge and framing of charge is whether, on the prosecution record alone, there is sufficient ground for proceeding or ground for presuming commission of the offence. The accused cannot invite a mini trial, rely on defence material, or seek a meticulous appraisal of probative value. Revisional interference is confined to patent legal error, jurisdictional error, or a case where the allegations accepted at face value do not disclose the offence.

Conclusion: The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal error warranting interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials collected in investigation disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner.

Analysis: The record disclosed a scheduled offence generating proceeds of crime, fake bitumen invoices, receipt of the disputed amount by the contractor company, and subsequent movement of those funds into related entities controlled by the petitioner. The statutory definition of proceeds of crime and the offence of money laundering under the Act cover direct or indirect involvement in possession, use, acquisition, concealment, and projecting tainted property as untainted. On that material, the court held that the petitioner's role as director and controlling person was sufficiently reflected at the threshold stage.

Conclusion: A prima facie case was made out against the petitioner for trial.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the threshold for discharge was not met and the charge was properly allowed to stand on the material produced by the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court must accept the prosecution material at face value, may only sift it to see whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists, and must not conduct a mini trial or assess defence material.

---