Independent judicial application of mind is required before accepting a summary report, and committal under PMLA follows cognizance only.

A Magistrate must independently apply judicial mind to a police report or C-Summary Report and the accompanying material before deciding whether to accept it, disagree with it, or order further investigation; acceptance cannot rest only on the informant's no-objection. Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 permits committal of the scheduled offence only after the jurisdictional court has taken cognizance of that offence, so a committal direction issued before that stage is premature. The impugned acceptance of the C-Summary Report and the committal direction were therefore unsustainable and required fresh consideration by the Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate could accept the C-Summary Report without independently applying mind to the material placed before it. (ii) Whether committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be directed before the jurisdictional court had taken cognizance of the scheduled offence.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate could accept the C-Summary Report without independently applying mind to the material placed before it.

Analysis: The governing principle is that when a police report or summary report is placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must consider the report and the accompanying material and decide whether to accept it, disagree with it and proceed further, or direct further investigation. Acceptance of the report cannot rest merely on the informant's no-objection, because the Magistrate must form an independent judicial opinion on the material before it.

Conclusion: The C-Summary Report could not be accepted without application of mind; the impugned acceptance order was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be directed before the jurisdictional court had taken cognizance of the scheduled offence.

Analysis: Section 44(1)(c) applies only after the court dealing with the scheduled offence has taken cognizance. The statutory scheme gives primacy to the Special Court under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act for trial coordination, but the stage of committal arises only after cognizance of the scheduled offence is taken by the jurisdictional court. If cognizance has not yet been taken, committal is premature.

Conclusion: The direction sending the papers to the Special Court was premature and liable to be set aside; the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the Magistrate.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the committal direction was annulled, and the proceedings were remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of the C-Summary Report, leaving the merits open.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate must independently apply mind before accepting a summary report, and committal under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 can arise only after cognizance of the scheduled offence has been taken by the jurisdictional court.

---