PMLA proceedings may be transferred to maintain statutory parity with trials of connected scheduled offences.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the PMLA prosecution initiated at Gurugram was valid regarding territorial jurisdiction

The court held

The Court held that for the ends of justice and to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 44(1) of the PMLA, the proceedings must be centralized

It also directed

The Court answered that while the Gurugram court had jurisdiction, the Delhi court shared it, and the transfer was "expedient"

The Supreme Court directed the transfer of PMLA Prosecution Complaint No. COMA/16/2025 from the Special Judge, PMLA, Gurugram, to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi, to proceed from its current stage

01Facts

The Petitioner, a promoter of M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd., was accused of cheating homebuyers in a Gurugram real estate project

pp. 1-2

Based on several FIRs alleging the diversion of approximately ₹503 Crore to shell companies and foreign subsidiaries, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered ECIR/GNZO/04/2023

pp. 2-3

While some original FIRs were quashed, a new scheduled offence (FIR No. 439/2024) was registered in Gurugram

p. 2

Simultaneously, an earlier related case (FIR No. 30/2019) was pending in Delhi

p. 3

A Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court previously transferred the Gurugram FIR (No. 439/2024) to Delhi to be clubbed with the Delhi FIR

p. 3

Consequently, the Petitioner sought the transfer of the PMLA prosecution from the Special Court in Gurugram to the Special Court in Delhi

p. 1, 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the PMLA prosecution initiated at Gurugram was valid regarding territorial jurisdiction

pp. 4-5

ii.2. Whether the PMLA proceedings should be transferred to the Delhi Special Court for the ends of justice, given that the underlying scheduled offences had already been transferred there

pp. 6-7

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 43 and Section 44(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which mandate that PMLA offences and connected scheduled offences be tried by the Special Court for the area where the offence was committed

pp. 4-5

It relied on the definition of "offence of money laundering" involving the derivation, possession, or concealment of proceeds of crime as interpreted in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement

pp. 4-5

Furthermore, Section 178(d) of the CrPC was applied via Section 46 of the PMLA, establishing that where an offence consists of several acts done in different areas, any court having jurisdiction over any such area may try the case

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 Section 4 Section 43 Section 44 Section 46

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 178

04Reasoning

The Court observed that since the 'proceeds of crime' were originally derived from the project site in Gurugram, the Gurugram court initially had valid jurisdiction

pp. 5-6

However, the Court distinguished this case from KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, noting that in the present matter, significant 'proceeds of crime' (cash, jewelry, FDs) were seized/attached in Delhi, granting the Delhi courts simultaneous jurisdiction

p. 6

The Court reasoned that since a Coordinate Bench had already transferred the primary scheduled offence (FIR No. 439/2024) to Delhi, keeping the PMLA trial in Gurugram would violate the statutory mandate of Section 44(1), which requires both the PMLA and scheduled offences to be tried together by the same Special Court

pp. 6-7

05Holding

The Court held that for the ends of justice and to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 44(1) of the PMLA, the proceedings must be centralized

p. 7

The Court answered that while the Gurugram court had jurisdiction, the Delhi court shared it, and the transfer was "expedient"

p. 7

LawLens.Supreme Court

Original Court PDF