Prima facie case in money-laundering charge framing: prosecution material and Section 50 statements can sustain grave suspicion.

At the discharge and charge-framing stage in a PMLA prosecution, the Court held that only the prosecution material, taken at face value, must be examined to see whether it discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion; a mini trial and assessment of the defence are impermissible. Applying that standard, the Court noted alleged routing, layering, concealment and projection of proceeds of crime through structured financial transactions, supported by documentary material and Section 50 statements. On that basis, the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge were sustained and no interference was warranted in revision.

---

---

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

Analysis: The proceedings arose from allegations that the petitioner had generated and routed proceeds of crime through structured financial transactions, including payments routed through intermediaries, purported loan arrangements, and documents said to be fabricated or backdated. The Court reiterated that at the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the exercise is limited to seeing whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses sufficient grounds to proceed; the defence version, disputed explanations, and probative worth of material cannot be examined in a mini trial. The Court also noted that statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are admissible material and may corroborate the banking trail and other documentary evidence. On the material available, the Court found that the alleged routing, layering, concealment, and projection of funds as untainted property furnished grave suspicion and satisfied the threshold for proceeding.

Conclusion: The discharge application was rightly rejected and the charge was rightly framed; no interference was warranted in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge in a money-laundering case, the Court must confine itself to whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion of involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, without undertaking a mini trial or weighing the defence on merits.

---