TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 barred a direct transfer request to the High Court for transfer between two Special Courts in the same sessions division. (ii) Whether, in view of Section 44(1)(c) read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the accused could seek transfer of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court where the PMLA case was pending, and whether such transfer was justified.
Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 barred a direct transfer request to the High Court for transfer between two Special Courts in the same sessions division.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 447 restricts direct applications to the High Court for transfer between criminal courts in the same sessions division unless the Sessions Judge has first been moved. However, Special Courts constituted under special statutes are distinct statutory fora exercising exclusive jurisdiction under those enactments. Their transfer between one Special Court and another Special Court was held not to be safely brought within the proviso's ordinary rule governing subordinate criminal courts in the sessions hierarchy. Accordingly, a direct application to the High Court for transfer between Special Courts was held to be legally permissible.
Conclusion: The proviso did not bar the transfer petition, and direct invocation of the High Court's transfer jurisdiction was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether, in view of Section 44(1)(c) read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the accused could seek transfer of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court where the PMLA case was pending, and whether such transfer was justified.
Analysis: Section 44(1)(c) was treated as an enabling provision authorising the competent PMLA authority to seek committal of the scheduled-offence case, but not as an absolute bar on a transfer request by another aggrieved person. Section 65 made the procedural law applicable so far as it was not inconsistent with the PMLA. The Court accepted that the scheduled offence and the money-laundering offence are not tried as a joint trial, but found that both matters could appropriately be placed before the same Special Court in the interest of justice where both courts were notified Special Courts under the PC Act and the PMLA.
Conclusion: The accused was entitled to seek transfer, and the transfer was warranted in the interest of justice.
Final Conclusion: The scheduled-offence case was ordered to be tried by the same Special Court already seized of the PMLA matter, and the transfer request succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is an enabling provision for committal at the instance of the authorised authority and does not exclude the High Court's transfer power under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly where transfer is sought between Special Courts in the interest of justice.
TaxTMI 
