Magistrate lacks jurisdiction for ED statements under PMLA; Special Court holds exclusive authority.

The court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to permit the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to record statements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Special Court (Court of Session) designated under the PMLA had exclusive jurisdiction for such matters. The order of the Magistrate was quashed, and the ED was given the opportunity to file the application before the Special Court as required by law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to permit the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to record statements under the PMLA.
2. Interpretation of relevant sections of the PMLA, specifically Sections 43, 44, and 50.
3. Overriding effect of the PMLA over other laws.
4. Applicability of judgments regarding jurisdiction and special courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate:
The petitioner challenged the order of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, allowing the ED to record statements of the petitioner and other accused under Section 50(3) of the PMLA. The petitioner contended that only the Sessions Court, designated as the Special Court under the PMLA, had the jurisdiction to permit such actions. The ED argued that since the petitioner was in judicial custody, the application had to be moved before the Magistrate who ordered the custody.

2. Interpretation of Relevant Sections of the PMLA:
The court analyzed the statutory framework of the PMLA, particularly Sections 43, 44, and 50. Section 43 designates the Court of Session as the Special Court for trying offences under the PMLA. Section 44 mandates that offences under the PMLA are triable by the Special Court. Section 50 empowers the authorities under the PMLA to summon and record statements. The court emphasized that the Special Court (Court of Session) has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters under the PMLA.

3. Overriding Effect of the PMLA:
Section 71 of the PMLA states that the provisions of the PMLA have an overriding effect over any other law. The court highlighted that any application or proceedings under the PMLA must be placed before the Special Court, irrespective of the accused being in judicial custody ordered by a Magistrate.

4. Applicability of Judgments:
The court referred to several judgments to support its decision:
- A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak: The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction conferred by a special statute cannot be overridden by any other court, even by the Supreme Court.
- Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra: The Supreme Court reiterated that special courts created under special enactments have exclusive jurisdiction over matters falling under those enactments.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India: The Supreme Court emphasized that trials under the PMLA must be conducted by the Special Court, and the PMLA has an overriding effect over other laws.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the ED under Section 50 of the PMLA. The application should have been placed before the Special Court (Court of Session) designated under the PMLA. Consequently, the order passed by the Magistrate was quashed, and the ED was granted liberty to file the application before the Special Court.

Order:
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.25035 of 2022 stands quashed.
(iii) The 3rd respondent - Enforcement Directorate is reserved liberty to file an application of the kind that it has filed before the learned Magistrate, before the Special Court, which shall deal with it in accordance with law.

---