The Assistant Director vs Additional Superintendent of Police,

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.07.2026
DELIVERED ON : 04.08.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
and Crl.M.P.Nos.4074 and 11904 of 2026
The Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zonal Office-II,
No.16, Greams Road, Tower-II,
rd
3 Floor, Thousand Lights West,
Thousand Light, Chennai-600 006.
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, Thoothukudi.
2.Anitha Radhakrishnan
No.1/43, North Street,
Thandupathu,
Manaduthandupathu,
Thoothukudi,
Tamilnadu-628 208.
______________
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
3.R.Jeygandhi
W/o.Anitha Radhakrishnan,
No.1/43, North Street, Thandupathu,
Manaduthandupathu, Tiruchendur,
Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu-628208.
4.R.Anandha Mageshwaran
S/o.Anitha R.Radhakrishnan,
No.5/7C, NGO Colony, Ganesh Nagar,
Tuticorin, Tamilnadu-628008.
5.R.Anandha Ramakrishnan
S/o.Anitha R.Radhakrishnan,
Plot No.17, Ayyanar Main Street,
Guru Nagar, Thiruppalai, Madurai Rural,
Tamilnadu-625014.
6.Anandha Padmanabhan
S/o.Anitha R.Radhakrishnan,
Plot No.40, Sivagami Nagar,
2nd street, Narayanapuram,
Madurai, Tamilnadu-625015.
7.R.Shanmugananthan
S/o.Ramammoorthy Nadar,
Plot No.58, KK Nagar East,
4th Street, Madurai-625020.
8.R.Sivananthan
S/o.Ramammoorthy Nadar,
No.224, KK Nagar, Madurai-652020.
9.Siva Blue Metals,
Pan No. ABDFS2764F,
Rep. by its Partners,
Ananda Mageshwaran (A3) and
A.Valarmathi,
Door No.9th, 8th Street, Toovipuram,
Tuticorin, Tamilnadu-628003.
Respondents
______________
Page 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 read with
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order in SR No.9962 of 2025
dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.
For Petitioner: Mr.P.Sidharthan
Special Public Prosecutor
for ED Cases
For Respondents: Mr.Arun Anbumani
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.M.Dinesh
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1
Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
for R2
Mr.A.Nagarajan
for Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
for R3 to R9
ORDER
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
This petition assails an order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, to set aside the
order in SR No.9962 of 2025.
______________
Page 3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
2.1. The facts in a nutshell are that the second respondent,
Anitha R. Radhakrishnan, was a Member of the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly from the Tiruchendur constituency between
May 2001 and May 2006, and during a part of that period he also
held the portfolio of Minister for Housing and Urban Development.
Alleging that the second respondent had, during his tenure,
acquired money and property far beyond what his known income
could explain, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Thoothukudi, registered a First Information Report against him in
the year 2006. The allegation, in essence, was that assets worth
around Rs.2.68 Crore had been built up in his own name and in the
names of his wife, his brothers and his sons, none of whom, it was
said, had any independent means to acquire such property.
2.2. The investigation led to a final report being filed in
Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. The amount said to be
disproportionate to the known sources of income works out to about
Rs.2.08 crore.
______________
Page 4 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
2.3. This Court, by order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Crl.R.C.
(MD) No.304 of 2014, directed that the trial be brought to a close
within six months, that is, on or before 15.12.2025. By the time this
petition came to be filed, the trial had, in fact, moved a long way,
viz., the prosecution had examined as many as 79 witnesses and
marked 312 exhibits and had closed its evidence; the defence, for
its part, had examined 6 witnesses and marked 74 exhibits, and
had likewise closed its evidence. The prosecution's arguments, oral
and written, were completed by 07.01.2026, and the defence had
argued in part before the proceedings came to a halt on account of
the stay granted in this petition.
2.4. While the disproportionate assets case was almost
reaching its logical conclusion in Thoothukudi, the Directorate of
Enforcement was pursuing a separate case of its own. Treating the
disproportionate assets allegedly as the proceeds of crime, it
registered an Enforcement Case Information Report and, after
investigation, filed a prosecution complaint alleging the offence of
money-laundering under Section 3, punishable under Section 4, of
______________
Page 5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [for brevity, “ the
PMLA ”]. This complaint was e-filed on 28.03.2025 and the hard
copy, together with the relied-upon documents, was filed on
03.04.2025 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai,
who is the Special Court designated to try such offences under
Section 43(1) of the PMLA. It was numbered A.No.122 of 2025.
2.5. The Special Court at Madurai, by a memorandum dated
04.09.2025, called upon the Directorate to produce the sanction
required under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[for brevity, “ the Code ”] for prosecuting the second respondent,
given his status as a former public servant within the meaning of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for brevity, “ the PC Act ”].
However, the sanction has still not been produced. Thereafter, the
Special Court at Madurai issued a pre-cognizance notice dated
24.12.2025 under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 [for brevity, “ the BNSS ”] calling upon the accused to
appear on 29.01.2026. What needs emphasis is that the Special
Court at Madurai has, as on date, not taken cognizance of the
money-laundering complaint at all.
______________
Page 6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
2.6. At this stage, the petitioner moved the Principal Sessions
Court, Thoothukudi, by way of an application under Section 44(1)
(c) of the PMLA to commit that case to the Special Court at
Madurai, so that both cases could be dealt with together. The
application was returned on 07.10.2025 raising two queries, viz., (i)
how could such an application even be entertained when this Court
had already directed that the Thoothukudi case be disposed of
within a fixed time; and (ii) how could a court that was admittedly
not a Special Court under the PMLA entertain an application
founded on that very Act. The said application was re-presented
with a response relying on two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz.,
1
(i) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India ; and (ii) Rana Ayyub
2
v. Directorate of Enforcement , but was returned again on
15.10.2025 for not properly complying with the earlier queries, then
again on 30.10.2025, and was finally taken up for hearing after
being re-presented on 10.12.2025 along with copies of further
judgments.
1
(2023) 12 SCC 1
2
(2023) 4 SCC 357
______________
Page 7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
2.7. By order dated 11.12.2025, the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, rejected the application. The reasons
given may be summarised thus: the Thoothukudi court has been
designated a Special Court only for the purpose of trying cases
against Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly under
the PC Act; it has not been designated as a Special Court under the
PMLA, which requires a separate and specific notification under
Section 43 of the PMLA; the Directorate, as an authority appointed
under Section 49 of the PMLA, is empowered to approach only the
Special Court constituted for PMLA matters, and not any other
court; on a plain reading of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, the case
on the file of the Thoothukudi court had taken cognizance upon a
complaint filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing under the
PC Act, and not upon any complaint filed by an authority under the
PMLA, so that the provision was not even attracted; and, finally,
that the Directorate had earlier moved an application under
Sections 301(2) and 302(2) of the Code before the very same court
on 20.04.2023, which was dismissed on merits on 03.07.2024 and
was never carried in appeal. On these grounds, the application was
held to be one filed without jurisdiction, and was rejected.
______________
Page 8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
2.8. Aggrieved, the Directorate has filed the present petition
to set aside that order.
3. Pending disposal of this petition, this court, by order dated
15.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4074 of 2026, stayed further
proceedings in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 filed an
application to vacate the stay. The Directorate has filed a counter
opposing vacation of stay.
4.1. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Directorate
would submit that the provisions of the Act read conjointly show
that the legislature always intended one and the same Special Court
to try both the scheduled offence, viz., the disproportionate assets
case under the PC Act, and the offence of money-laundering arising
from it.
4.2. It is pointed out that Section 43(2) of the PMLA says a
Special Court " shall also try " any connected offence, and that
Section 44(1)(a) of the PMLA says such connected offence " shall be
______________
Page 9 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
triable " by the Special Court for the area where the money-
laundering offence was committed. Reliance is placed on the
Standing Committee on Finance's Fifty-Sixth Report on the 2012
amendment, which explains that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA was
inserted precisely to provide a mechanism by which a scheduled-
offence case pending elsewhere could be committed to the Special
Court, with the Special Court then continuing from the stage at
which it received the case.
4.3. It is further submitted, relying on a decision of the
Calcutta High Court in Ranjit Singh Kothari v. State of West
3
Bengal , that the very design of the statute is that one court alone
should try both sets of offences, so as to avoid the risk of two
courts arriving at inconsistent findings on the same facts.
4.4. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this court in
4
Deputy Director v. Deputy Superintendent of Police , wherein the
CBI court was held to have no option but to transfer a scheduled-
offence case to the designated PMLA court once an application was
3
2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4662
4
2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2125
______________
Page 10 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
made.
4.5. On the specific point of whether cognizance should first
be taken by the Special Court before a transfer can be sought,
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner relies on
paragraphs 27, 29 and 30 of Rana Ayyub (supra) to argue that
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA does not impose cognizance by the
Special Court as a pre-condition and that requiring it would defeat
the very purpose of the 2012 amendment.
4.6. Finally, it is submitted that no prejudice can possibly be
caused to anyone, because the Special Court, once the case is
committed to it, is bound in any event to take up the matter from
the very stage at which it was left off.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the first respondent submits that the first respondent was never
served with notice of the application under Section 44(1)(c) of the
PMLA filed before the Thoothukudi court and that the first
respondent is unaware of the exact stage of the proceedings before
______________
Page 11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
the Special Court at Madurai. He added that the first respondent
has no specific objection to the transfer of the case to the Special
Court at Madurai.
6.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
second respondent and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.3 to 9, in one voice, submitted that Section 44(1)
(c) of the PMLA applies, on its own wording, only where the Special
Court has " taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of
money-laundering ". In the case at hand, by the petitioner’s own
admission in its affidavit, the Special Court at Madurai has not taken
cognizance. It has issued only a pre-cognizance notice under
Section 223 of the BNSS calling the accused to appear.
6.2. Reliance is placed on a recent decision in Kushal Kumar
5
Agarwal v. Enforcement Directorate , holding that for complaints
st
filed after 1 July 2024, cognizance cannot be taken until the
accused has been given an opportunity of hearing under Section
223 of the BNSS, a stage the case at Madurai has not yet crossed.
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221
______________
Page 12 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
In support of the said plea, reliance is also placed on a decision of a
6
learned Single Judge in Seeman v. Varun Kumar .
6.3. It is further submitted that, as a former Minister and
MLA, the second respondent is a public servant within the meaning
of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, and prosecution sanction under
Section 197(1) of the Code (now Section 218 of the BNSS) is a
jurisdictional pre-requisite, without which no court can validly take
cognizance against him. The Special Court at Madurai itself has
raised this query on 4.9.2025 and the sanction has still not been
furnished. It is, therefore, submitted that the Special Court at
Madurai is legally incapable of taking cognizance in respect of the
second accused, which makes the petitioner’s application
premature.
6.4. It is further submitted that the disproportionate assets
case is on the file of a court within the Thoothukudi Sessions
Division and the money-laundering complaint is before a court
within the Madurai Sessions Division. These are two different
6
Order dated 27.11.2025 in Crl.RC (MD) No.772 of 2025
______________
Page 13 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
Sessions Divisions. It is submitted that the power to move a
criminal case from one Sessions Division to another has never
rested with the Sessions Court itself and it rests exclusively with the
High Court, under what used to be Sections 406 and 407 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and now finds its place in Sections 448
and 449 of the BNSS. Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, it is argued,
cannot be read as silently overriding that scheme and conferring the
Sessions Court the power to send a case out of its own division. If
the petitioner intends to transfer the case, its remedy lay in a
transfer petition before this court and not by way of an application
before a court that lacked the power to grant it.
6.5. It is also submitted that by the time the application was
even filed seeking transfer of the case, the prosecution had
examined 79 witnesses and marked 312 exhibits, the defence had
examined 6 witnesses and marked 74 exhibits, evidence on both
sides stood closed, the prosecution had completed its arguments,
and the defence had argued in part. It is submitted that Section
44(1)(c) of the PMLA was conceived to save the time and effort of
the courts and to avoid two parallel trials on the same facts running
______________
Page 14 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
to two different conclusions and it can never be used as a lever to
be pulled at the eleventh hour to start a concluded trial all over
again before an unfamiliar court. Such relief sought by the
petitioner would seriously hamper the rights of respondent Nos.2 to
9 to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, a right this
court itself had sought to protect by directing time-bound disposal.
6.6. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Orissa High Court
7
in Pankajini Sahu v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate ,
wherein it was held that committal under Section 44 PMLA is not an
automatic, mechanical exercise, but one calling for the exercise of
discretion having regard to the interest of justice; and it is
submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in Rana
Ayyub (supra) and the decision of this Court in Deputy Director v.
Deputy Superintendent of Police (supra), both concerned trials that
were still at an early or actively ongoing stage, and neither can be
read as to uproot a nearly-finished trial in the case on hand.
6.7. It is pointed out that the petitioner had already tried in
7
(2023) 154 taxmann.com 60
______________
Page 15 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
2023 to achieve the same result through an application under
Sections 301(2) and 302(2) of the Code, which was dismissed on
merits in July 2024 and was never challenged. The present attempt
through a different statutory provision is an abuse of the process of
the court.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel on both sides, the question
that stems up for our consideration is “ Whether the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, was right in refusing to send
the pending disproportionate assets case to the Special Court at
Madurai, on an application made under Section 44(1)(c) of the
PMLA? ”
8. Before adverting to the merits of the rival submissions, it is
useful to set out Section 44 of the PMLA, which reads as under:
“44. Offences triable by Special Courts.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any
scheduled offence connected to the offence under
______________
Page 16 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
that section shall be triable by the Special Court
constituted for the area in which the offence has
been committed:
Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled
offence before the commencement of this Act, shall
continue to try such scheduled offence; or
(b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by
an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act
take cognizance of offence under section 3, without
the accused being committed to it for trial.
Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no
offence of moneylaundering is made out requiring
filing of such complaint, the said authority shall
submit a closure report before the Special Court; or
(c) 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), it shall, on an application
by the authority authorised to file a complaint
under this Act, 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
______________
Page 17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
it is committed .
(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled
offence or the offence of money-laundering shall hold
trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Crimina1 Procedure, 1 973, as it applies to a trial
before a Court of Session.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is
clarified that,—
(i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing
with the offence under this Act, during investigation,
enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be
dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the
scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of
offences by the same court shall not be construed as
joint trial;
(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any
subsequent complaint in respect of further
investigation that may be conducted to bring any
further evidence, oral or documentary, against any
accused person involved in respect of the offence, for
which complaint has already been filed, whether
named in the original complaint or not.
______________
Page 18 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed
to affect the special powers of the High Court
regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High
Court may exercise such powers including the power
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as
if the reference to Magistrate in that section includes
also a reference to a Special Court designated under
section 43.”
[emphasis supplied]
9. A bare reading of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA makes it
clear as day that the clause is speaking of two courts, each of which
has already taken cognizance — one of the scheduled offence, and
the other, being the Special Court, of the money-laundering
complaint. Only when both the courts have taken cognizance and
they turn out to be different courts, does the mechanism of
committal come into play. Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA does not
say " if the Special Court is likely to take cognizance " or " once the
Special Court is seized of the complaint ". It explicitly states that
the Special Court must have " taken cognizance ".
______________
Page 19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
10. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub
(supra), in the very passages relied upon by the petitioner, the
taking of cognizance by the Special Court is treated as a fact
already accomplished and it is not stated to be a mere formality to
be dispensed with.
11. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra)
speaks of the amendment clarifying how trials are to proceed once
both cases are properly instituted and it does not say that an
application can be entertained in anticipation of cognizance.
12. On the admitted facts here, the Special Court at Madurai
has not taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint. It has
only issued a notice under Section 223 of the BNSS calling the
accused to appear before it decides whether to take cognizance at
all, which is a pre-requisite that is held to be mandatory and must
be complied with before cognizance can be taken, as has been held
by the Supreme Court in Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra) and was
also emphasized in Seeman (supra).
______________
Page 20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
13. Admittedly, one of the two essential facts on which
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is built, viz., cognizance by the Special
Court, is not yet satisfied. An application asking the Thoothukudi
Court to commit the case, even when cognizance was not taken by
the Special Court, in our considered view, is premature.
14. That apart, the second respondent was a Minister and a
sitting legislator during the period in question. The Special Court at
Madurai itself asked for the sanction in September 2025. Nearly a
year has gone by and the petitioner has still not produced the
same. In the absence of such sanction being produced, the Special
Court is not likely to take cognizance against the second
respondent. Therefore, the default, if any, lies on the part of the
petitioner.
15. Moreover, Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA exists to save
time and to avoid the risk of two courts reaching different
conclusions on the same facts. It was never meant to serve as a
means of reopening a trial that has, for all practical purposes,
______________
Page 21 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
already been fought and finished. Here, 79 prosecution witnesses
and 312 exhibits stand examined and marked; the defence has led
its own evidence through 6 witnesses and 74 exhibits; both sides
have closed their evidence; the prosecution has completed its
arguments and the defence has argued in substantial part. To
commit such a case, at this stage, to the Special Court at Madurai,
which has not even taken cognizance of the connected money-
laundering complaint would simply delay the case before the
Thoothukudi Court, which is on the verge of conclusion.
16. In Deputy Director v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
(supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
transfer was directed where the Special Court had already taken
cognizance, where both courts sat within the same city and the
same sessions jurisdiction, and where the scheduled-offence trial
was still actively in progress. None of those three features is
present in the case at hand.
17. In the case of Rana Ayyub (supra), the question of forum
was considered at an early stage of the proceedings, where the trial
______________
Page 22 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
had not gone far. The decision in Ranjit Singh Kothari (supra)
emphasizes about the general legislative intention that one court
should try both offences, which principle this Court does not doubt,
but only states is not applicable to the facts of the present case
where cognizance is not yet taken and there no sanction has been
obtained.
18. The discretion recognised in Pankajini Sahu (supra) that
committal under Section 44 of the PMLA is not to be ordered as a
matter of course, but only where the interest of justice calls for it,
is, in the circumstances, of direct application and points firmly
against committal at this stage.
19. A trial delayed at its very end, for reasons having nothing
to do with its own merits, is a trial denied in substance. The
observations made by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman
8
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak recognise that cases of disproportionate
assets against public servants do, by their nature, take long and
that is all the more reason not to add fresh, avoidable delay once
8
(1992) 1 SCC 225
______________
Page 23 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
such a case has almost reached its destination.
20. Equally, this Court is conscious of the principles restated in
9
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P . governing
when an interim stay may be vacated, viz., where there is a
material change in circumstances, or where continuing the stay
would only serve to prolong matters without justification. In the
case at hand, by virtue of the stay granted, the trial that this Court
itself had earlier directed to be finished within six months in the
earlier round of proceedings, has instead stood still and the parallel
proceeding with which it was sought to be committed did not move
any closer to cognizance.
21. It also needs to be pointed out that the petitioner had, in
April 2023, already sought similar relief by way of an application
under Sections 301(2) and 302(2) of the Code before the same
court, and that petition was dismissed on merits in July 2024,
without any appeal being carried against it. While this Court refrains
from treating that dismissal as a formal bar, it is a relevant
9
(2024) 6 SCC 267
______________
Page 24 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
circumstance bearing on the propriety of a second attempt, through
a different provision, to secure what is substantially the same
outcome, particularly when raised only after the scheduled-offence
trial had progressed still further towards conclusion.
22. In view of the findings rendered hereinabove, the other
issues raised pale into significance and are left open to be
adjudicated in an appropriate case, as any finding rendered herein
will have a bearing on the merits of the case to be pleaded before
the appropriate court.
23. For all these reasons, this court is satisfied that the order
dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Thoothukudi, rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section
44(1)(c) of the PMLA, warrants no interference. The application was
premature, since the Special Court at Madurai has not taken
cognizance of the money-laundering complaint and cannot presently
do so in the absence of the sanction required under Section 197(1)
of the Code. The trial in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 has reached a stage
where sending it to another court would cause real prejudice to the
______________
Page 25 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
accused and serve no legitimate object of the statute.
24. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026 accordingly fails and is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. As a consequence, Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11904 of 2026 filed by
the accused for vacating the interim stay of proceedings in
Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 granted on 15.04.2026 is allowed and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4074 of 2026 stands dismissed.
26. The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, is directed to
take up Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 at the earliest available date and
proceed further with all due expedition, bearing in mind that this
court had earlier directed its disposal within a time-bound schedule
and that the case has, for reasons beyond the control of either side,
already run well past that schedule.
27. We make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall be
taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
disproportionate assets case or on the merits of the money-
______________
Page 26 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
laundering complaint pending before the Special Court, Madurai,
both of which shall be decided independently, on their own merits,
by the respective courts seized of them.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
04.08.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To:
1.The Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zonal Office-II,
No.16, Greams Road, Tower-II,
rd
3 Floor, Thousand Lights West,
Thousand Light,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, Thoothukudi.
______________
Page 27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )

2026:MHC:3219
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sasi)
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026

04.08.2026
______________
Page 28 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2026 11:55:44 am )