Distinct PMLA and predicate offence proceedings do not justify transfer of the scheduled case to the Special Court

Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits commitment of a scheduled offence to the Special Court only on an application by the authorised authority, and does not give the accused a right to seek transfer of the predicate prosecution merely because a money-laundering complaint is pending. The scheduled-offence trial and the PMLA proceedings remain distinct and independent, so pendency of one does not oust the jurisdiction of the court trying the other. On that basis, the request for adjournment sine die and transfer of the pending criminal case to the Special Court was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pending prosecution for the scheduled offence under the Indian Penal Code could be transferred or kept in abeyance for joint trial before the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 governs trials before the Special Court and permits commitment of a scheduled offence to that Court only on an application by the authorised authority. The statutory scheme does not confer a right on the accused to demand transfer of the predicate offence to the Special Court merely because a money-laundering complaint has also been filed. The proceedings for the scheduled offence and the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are distinct and independent, and the pendency of the latter does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the court trying the former. The Court also noted that transferring the older pending criminal case would unnecessarily delay the prosecution, and that the accused would not be prejudiced by continuation of the trial before the existing court.

Conclusion: The prayer for adjournment sine die and transfer of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court was not sustainable, and the petition was rejected.

---