https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764674 After filing of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the accused may still be called for interrogation for recording statements under Section 50 because Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) expressly permits the investigating agency to adopt that course. The contrary view in the impugned judgment was rejected for overlooking this express statutory provision, and the document states that post-complaint interrogation remains permissible. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2025 08:17:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764674 After filing of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the accused may still be called for interrogation for recording statements under Section 50 because Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) expressly permits the investigating agency to adopt that course. The contrary view in the impugned judgment was rejected for overlooking this express statutory provision, and the document states that post-complaint interrogation remains permissible. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764674