Scheduled offences must be tried by the Special Court having jurisdiction over the PMLA offence.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court trying a scheduled offence is mandated to commit the case to the Special Court under the PMLA upon an application filed under Section 44(1)(c).

The court held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2025.

It also directed

It held that while Section 44(1)(c) normally requires the scheduled offence to move to the PMLA Court, in this specific instance—where the CBI Court is designated for both acts and the PMLA Court is not—the PMLA case (C.C.No.37 of 2015) shall be transferred to the XIII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases (presiding over C.C.No.19 of 2014).

The petition was allowed with directions for the CBI Court to proceed with both trials.

01Facts

The Petitioner (Enforcement Directorate) filed a complaint (C.C.No.37 of 2015) under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against Respondents 2 and 3 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai.

pp. 4-5

Simultaneously, the Respondents were facing trial for the predicate/scheduled offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, in C.C.No.19 of 2014 before the XIII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases.

pp. 3-4

The Petitioner moved an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA to transfer the predicate offence case to the PMLA Special Court.

p. 5

The CBI Court dismissed this application on 18.03.2025, citing the advanced stage of the trial.

p. 5

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal before the High Court.

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court trying a scheduled offence is mandated to commit the case to the Special Court under the PMLA upon an application filed under Section 44(1)(c).

p. 10/para. 11

ii.2. Whether the predicate offence under the PC Act should be transferred to the PMLA Court if the PMLA Court is not designated to try PC Act offences, while the CBI Court is designated for both.

pp. 15/para. 17-18

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, which stipulates that a court cognizant of a scheduled offence "shall" commit the case to the Special Court trying the money-laundering offence upon application.

p. 8

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, which established that the trial of the scheduled offence must follow the trial of the money-laundering offence to ensure they are heard by the same court, though not as a joint trial.

p. 5 · pp. 12-13

It also considered the procedural deviation permitted in Assistant Director, ED v. Inspector of Police (SLP Diary No.18882/2022), where the Supreme Court allowed PMLA cases to be transferred to a CBI Special Court if that court was already designated for both enactments.

p. 16

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 43 Section 44

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

04Reasoning

The Court observed that Section 44(1)(c) leaves no discretion to the court trying the scheduled offence; it must commit the case to the PMLA Special Court.

p. 14

However, a jurisdictional conflict arose because the PMLA Special Court was not designated to hear PC Act cases, whereas the XIII Additional CBI Court was already a designated Special Court under both the PC Act and the PMLA.

p. 17

Following the pragmatic approach in the Assistant Director, ED (2022) precedent, the Court reasoned that since the CBI Court was competent to try both sets of offences and the PMLA Court was not, the interest of justice and statutory compliance would be best served by transferring the PMLA case to the CBI Court instead of vice versa.

p. 17/para. 20