Money laundering complaint sustained where earlier-acquired property was later alleged to be used in concealment and projection of crime proceeds.

A complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act disclosed a prima facie offence where it traced linked predicate FIRs for illegal granite quarrying and connected the petitioner's firm and quarry land to the laundering of proceeds of crime. The Court treated the statutory definitions of proceeds of crime and property as broad enough to cover property derived from or used in connection with scheduled criminal activity, and held that prior acquisition of the land did not defeat the complaint where later use in concealment, possession, transfer, renewal of lease, and projection as untainted property was alleged. At the quashing stage, the Court declined a roving enquiry into the prosecution case and found sufficient particulars for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act disclosed a prima facie offence against the petitioner, including whether property acquired before the alleged period of illegal mining could still be treated as involved in money laundering.

Analysis: The complaint, read as a whole, traced five connected predicate FIRs involving illegal granite quarrying, quantified the loss to the exchequer, and specifically linked the petitioner's partnership firm and quarry land to the laundering of proceeds of crime. The property acquisition in 2000 did not conclude the enquiry, because the complaint alleged that the same property was later used in the laundering activity through transfer and renewal of mining lease and was part of the overall process of concealment, possession, acquisition, use, and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property. The statutory definitions of proceeds of crime and property, together with the offence provision under the Act, were treated as covering property derived from or used in connection with scheduled criminal activity, and the Court held that the complaint contained sufficient particulars for trial. The Court also reiterated that, at the stage of quashing, it was not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the eventual truth or sufficiency of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against the petitioner, and the petition for quashing was not maintainable on the pleaded grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Property used in the laundering process may constitute proceeds of crime even if its original acquisition pre-dates the predicate period, and a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not liable to be quashed at the threshold when it discloses sufficient particulars of the laundering activity.

---