Madras High Court: In a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), read with Section 44(1)(c), Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), dealing with rejection of transfer of the scheduled offence to the Special Court under the PMLA, the Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ., and G. Arul Murugan*, J., held that the order of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court refusing transfer was perverse and unsustainable. The Court emphasised that Section 44(1)(c) PMLA mandates transfer once an application is made by the authorised authority and leaves no discretion with the trial court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the case under the PMLA be transferred to the Special Court which is already trying the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
Background
The case arose from proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA. At the same time, CBI registered a criminal case and filed a charge-sheet under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, which was pending trial before the XIII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.
Since the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are scheduled offences, the ED registered an enforcement case, issued a provisional attachment order, and filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi, which confirmed that the attached properties were proceeds of crime. A complaint under Section 44(1) PMLA was thereafter filed for the offence of money laundering, which was taken cognizance of by the Special Court for PMLA cases.
It was further stated that several documents examined in the corruption case were relevant to the money laundering case and should be held as evidence. Accordingly, an application was filed before the CBI Court seeking transfer of the scheduled offence case to the designated Special Court under the PMLA. However, the application was dismissed, leading to the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that a Special Court is constituted under Section 43(1) PMLA primarily for the purpose of trying an offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA. The Court noted that sub-section (2) of Section 43 PMLA confers additional jurisdiction upon such Special Court to try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial. Further, under Section 44(1) PMLA, an offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed.
The Court observed that from Section 44(1)(c) PMLA, it can be deduced that if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money laundering under sub-clause (b) of the Section 44(1) PMLA, it shall, on an application by the authority authorised to file a complaint under PMLA, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court, and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case, proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.
The Court referred to Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SCC 357, wherein the Supreme Court held that Section 44(1)(a) PMLA makes it crystal clear that the Special Court constituted under Section 44(1) PMLA is empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to money laundering. The Supreme Court further observed that if the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence is different from the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence of money laundering, then the authorised authority should apply for transfer, and on such application, the scheduled offence must be committed to the Special Court dealing with money laundering.
The Court, while relying on Rana Ayyub (supra), noted that insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the trial of the scheduled offence should follow the trial of the offence of money laundering and not vice versa. The Court highlighted that the impugned order of the trial court rejecting the application, holding that the trial in the scheduled offence is in an advanced stage and that the transfer to the designated Special Court under the PMLA would delay the trial, is perverse and cannot be sustained.
The Court further referred to Enforcement Directorate v. Inspector of Police, where it was held that the case under the PMLA may be transferred to the Special Court which is trying the scheduled predicate offence under the PC Act, as that court is competent to try both cases, and by keeping the legal issue open, the Supreme Court directed the case from the Special Court under the PMLA to be transferred to the Special Court trying the predicate offence under the PC Act.
Applying the proposition, the Court noted that the Special Court trying the predicate scheduled offence under the PC Act is also a designated Special Court under the PMLA, which is competent to try both cases, whereas the Special Court under the PMLA is not a designated Special Court under the PC Act.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the PMLA case be transferred to the XIII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, which is already trying the predicate offence under the PC Act.
The Court thus allowed the criminal original petition.
[Enforcement Directorate v. CBI, CRL OP No. 8776 of 2025, decided on 5-5-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G. Arul Murugan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajnish Pathiyil, Special Public Prosecutor
For the Respondents: B. Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor, R. Sathish Kumar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
