TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had jurisdiction to try and receive transfer of a scheduled offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the transfer order under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was valid.
Analysis: Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 confers exclusive jurisdiction on Special Judges appointed under that Act to try offences under Section 3(1), but the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a later special enactment with its own non obstante clauses in Sections 44 and 71. The scheme of Sections 43 and 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shows that the Special Court under that Act may try the scheduled offence as well as the money-laundering offence, and the Explanation to Section 44(1) clarifies that such trial is not to be treated as a joint trial. The Court held that Section 44(1)(a) and Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are enabling provisions intended to permit the same court to try the connected offences, and that the legislative object of coordinated trial and avoidance of inconsistency requires giving effect to the later statute. The accused would not suffer prejudice because the designated Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is also a Court of Session and satisfies the necessary qualification. The transfer power under Section 44(1)(c) is not mandatory in every case and may be invoked where it serves the interest of speedy trial and is otherwise expedient.
Conclusion: The Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had jurisdiction to try the scheduled offence, and the transfer order was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later special statute contains an express overriding and transfer mechanism, its jurisdictional scheme prevails over an earlier special statute to the extent of inconsistency, enabling the same court to try the scheduled offence and the connected money-laundering offence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
