TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Transfer of case due to lack of jurisdiction under Prevention of Money Laundering Act</h1> <h3>Parasmal Lodha Versus Union of India, The Enforcement Directorate</h3> Parasmal Lodha Versus Union of India, The Enforcement Directorate - 2017 (354) E.L.T. 296 (Mad.) Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court under PMLA, Power to remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C., Issuance of PT Warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C.Jurisdiction of the Court under PMLA:The petitioner challenged the remand order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), arguing that the XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, lacked jurisdiction as not being notified under Section 43 of the PMLA. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the provisions of Sections 43 and 44 of the PMLA, emphasizing the requirement for Special Courts designated by the Central Government for trying scheduled offences. The counsel pointed out that the specific court in question had not been notified under Section 43, rendering it incompetent to try the PMLA offence and remand the petitioner.Power to remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C.:The petitioner's counsel contended that the power to remand a person under Section 167 Cr.P.C. is limited to the period of the first remand by a Magistrate lacking jurisdiction to try the case. Subsequent remands fall under the jurisdictional court's purview, barring interference by other courts. In this case, the XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, was not authorized under PMLA to try scheduled offences, thus lacking jurisdiction to remand the petitioner. The counsel argued that the court's remand order was legally unsustainable.Issuance of PT Warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C.:The petitioner's counsel further challenged the issuance of a Production Warrant (PT Warrant) by the XI Additional Sessions Court, citing Section 267 Cr.P.C. The counsel argued that since the court was not notified under PMLA, it lacked the authority to issue the PT Warrant. The counsel sought to quash the order remanding the petitioner to judicial custody based on the invalid PT Warrant issued by the court without proper jurisdiction.Court's Decision:After hearing arguments from both parties, the Court directed the XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, to transfer the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, due to the lack of jurisdiction under PMLA. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the absence of notification of the concerned court under Section 43 of the PMLA, thereby invalidating the remand order and the PT Warrant issued by the court. Consequently, the criminal original petition was disposed of, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.
TaxTMI 