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>Special Court under PMLA has jurisdiction over PC Act offences, can try money laundering and predicate offences separately.</h1> <h3>Upendra Rai Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.</h3> Upendra Rai Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Special Court (PMLA) to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).2. Interpretation of non-obstante clauses in the PC Act and PMLA.3. Applicability of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA in transferring cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Special Court (PMLA) to Try Offences Under the PC Act:The primary issue is whether the Special Courts constituted under Section 43 of the PMLA have jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the PC Act. The petitioner argued that a Special Court under the PMLA is not competent to try offences under the PC Act, as Section 4 of the PC Act mandates that only Judges appointed under Section 3 of the PC Act can try such offences. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in P. Nallamal and Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, which emphasized the exclusivity of jurisdiction conferred upon Special Judges under the PC Act.2. Interpretation of Non-Obstante Clauses in the PC Act and PMLA:The court examined the non-obstante clauses in both the PC Act and the PMLA. Section 4(1) of the PC Act contains a non-obstante clause that overrides any other law in force, emphasizing that offences under the PC Act shall be tried only by Special Judges appointed under the PC Act. Conversely, Section 44(1) of the PMLA also contains a non-obstante clause, which indicates that the PMLA would override any inconsistent provision of the Cr.PC. The court clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 44(1) of the PMLA does not control the plain meaning of its various clauses and does not limit the applicability of the PMLA to only those provisions inconsistent with the Cr.PC.3. Applicability of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA in Transferring Cases:Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires that if a court other than the Special Court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence, it shall commit the case to the Special Court upon application by the authorized authority. The court noted that the explanation introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, clarified that the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as a joint trial, thereby allowing the Special Court under the PMLA to try predicate offences separately. The court emphasized that the Special Court under the PMLA has jurisdiction to try scheduled offences, including those under the PC Act, if they are connected to the offence of money laundering.Reasons and Conclusion:The court concluded that the provisions of Section 44(1)(a) and 44(1)(c) of the PMLA must be given effect despite being repugnant to Section 4(1) of the PC Act. It reasoned that the objective of enabling the same court to try both the offences of money laundering and the predicate scheduled offence would be served, and there would be no conflict with the legislative intent. The court also noted that the Special Judges designated under the PMLA are qualified to try cases under the PC Act, and there is no reason to believe that the legislative object of the PC Act would not be served if the trial is conducted by a Special Judge under the PMLA.The court dismissed the petition, upholding the transfer of the case to the Special Court (PMLA) at Patiala House Courts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
TaxTMI 