At the discharge stage in a PMLA prosecution, the trial court is required only to sift the material to see whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a roving inquiry into the merits. The court's order was upheld because it had considered the FIR in the predicate offence, the ECIR, the accused's Section 50 statement, property documents and the evaluation report, and had noted compliance with the prescribed procedure. Reading the order as a whole, there was no non-application of mind or perversity warranting revisional interference. The question whether the assets constitute proceeds of crime was left open for trial, so the refusal to discharge was sustained.
At the discharge stage in a PMLA prosecution, the trial court is required only to sift the material to see whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a roving inquiry into the merits. The court's order was upheld because it had considered the FIR in the predicate offence, the ECIR, the accused's Section 50 statement, property documents and the evaluation report, and had noted compliance with the prescribed procedure. Reading the order as a whole, there was no non-application of mind or perversity warranting revisional interference. The question whether the assets constitute proceeds of crime was left open for trial, so the refusal to discharge was sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
