PMLA territorial jurisdiction turns on where laundering activity occurred; residence of accused or remand alone does not justify transfer.

Territorial jurisdiction for a PMLA prosecution complaint depends on where the alleged money-laundering activity occurred, not where the scheduled offence was registered or tried; on the stated facts, links to Uttar Pradesh meant the Lucknow Special Court was not shown to lack jurisdiction. Residence of most accused or witnesses in Kerala and South India, by itself, was insufficient to justify transfer of the proceedings to Ernakulam. A remand under Section 167(2) CrPC also did not bar later filing of the complaint at Lucknow, because that provision operates with reference to the forwarding Magistrate even if that court lacks trial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Court, PMLA, Lucknow lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether the residence of most accused and witnesses in Kerala and South India furnished a ground to transfer the case to Ernakulam; (iii) whether the petitioner's remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred the filing of the complaint at Lucknow.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Court, PMLA, Lucknow lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under the PMLA depends on the place where any of the processes or activities constituting the offence of money-laundering under Section 3 take place, and not on the place where the scheduled offence was registered or tried. The complaint disclosed material linking the alleged laundering activity to Uttar Pradesh, including transfers connected with the UP ATS investigation. On that basis, the Special Court at Lucknow could not be said to be without territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the residence of most accused and witnesses in Kerala and South India furnished a ground to transfer the case to Ernakulam.

Analysis: The residence of accused persons or the location of witnesses, by itself, was held insufficient to justify transfer of a criminal proceeding. Those circumstances did not establish any legal basis for shifting the prosecution complaint from the court seized of the matter.

Conclusion: No transfer was warranted on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner's remand under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred the filing of the complaint at Lucknow.

Analysis: Section 167(2) operates with reference to the Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded and expressly applies even where that Magistrate may not have jurisdiction to try the case. The remand order therefore did not render the later complaint at Lucknow impermissible.

Conclusion: The remand-based objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The transfer request failed on every substantive ground, as the Special Court at Lucknow had no demonstrated lack of jurisdiction and no other legally valid basis existed to shift the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the money-laundering activity is alleged to have occurred, and a transfer cannot be ordered merely because accused persons or witnesses are located elsewhere or because the accused was remanded by a court that may not have trial jurisdiction.

---