https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311876 Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC was unwarranted because the discharge order disclosed no patent illegality, impropriety, or error, and the revisional court could not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. The court also held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 require material showing a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime. As the record, including the earlier acquittal in the predicate offences, did not establish that the property or cash represented proceeds of crime, mere suspicion or uncorroborated material was insufficient. The challenge to discharge therefore failed and the money-laundering proceedings were unsustainable. en-us Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:18:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311876 Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC was unwarranted because the discharge order disclosed no patent illegality, impropriety, or error, and the revisional court could not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. The court also held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 require material showing a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime. As the record, including the earlier acquittal in the predicate offences, did not establish that the property or cash represented proceeds of crime, mere suspicion or uncorroborated material was insufficient. The challenge to discharge therefore failed and the money-laundering proceedings were unsustainable. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311876