Dismissal of Application to Quash Order in Money Laundering Case Emphasizes Special Court's Jurisdiction

The court dismissed the application seeking to quash the order passed by the Special Judge in a money laundering case, emphasizing the independence of the Special Court's jurisdiction and rejecting the plea for a joint trial with the scheduled offence being heard elsewhere. Additionally, the court upheld the impugned order and ruled that the Special Court's jurisdiction is not reliant on directing specific applications under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow
2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Analysis:
1. The application sought to quash the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 9 of 2017. The charge sheet was filed under various sections including Section 120-B, 420, 409 I.P.C., and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. The Enforcement Directorate filed ECIR No. ECIR/05/PMLA/LZO/2012 under the PML Act, leading to the registration of Complaint Case No. 9 of 2017. The applicant contended that the trial for the scheduled offence was pending in the court of Special Judge C.B.I./ NRHM, Ghaziabad, and thus, the trial for the money laundering offence should also be conducted there. The court examined the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is independent of any orders related to the scheduled offence, and a joint trial of both offences is not implied.

2. The applicant moved an application seeking direction for the Enforcement Directorate to comply with Section 44(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent argued that the court had no jurisdiction to direct the agency to file a specific application. The court referred to a previous order disposing of a similar application, highlighting the need for the applicant to follow the appropriate legal procedures. The court found no illegality in the impugned order, emphasizing that the Special Court's jurisdiction is not dependent on directing specific applications by rejecting the applicant's plea to comply with Section 44(1)(c) of the Act.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, upholding the impugned order and emphasizing the independence of the Special Court's jurisdiction in dealing with offences under the PML Act.

---