PMLA committal power is directory, not mandatory; authorised authority need not seek joint trial in every case.

Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is directory, not mandatory: the authorised authority may seek committal of the scheduled offence for a joint or analogous trial only in appropriate cases, and the provision does not impose an invariable duty to do so. The statutory scheme treats money laundering and the scheduled offence as distinct proceedings, and the word "shall" governs the court's response only after a valid application is made. As a result, petitioners cannot insist on committal as of right, and the challenge to the notices failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 makes it mandatory for the authorised authority to seek committal of the scheduled offence for a joint or analogous trial before the PMLA court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats prosecution for money laundering and prosecution for the scheduled offence as distinct proceedings. The provision permitting committal is triggered only on an application by the authorised authority, which indicates that the power is not compulsory in every case. The use of the word "shall" in the provision governs the court's response once such an application is validly made, but it does not impose an invariable duty on the authority to move for committal. The power is to be exercised only in appropriate cases where committal would further the object of the Act and not impede effective prosecution.

Conclusion: Section 44(1)(c) is directory and not mandatory. The petitioners had no right to insist on committal of the scheduled offence, and the challenge to the notices failed.

---