2026 (2) TMI 186 - HC - Money Laundering

Transfer of trials between Special Courts under PMLA and BNSS upheld, allowing consolidation before a single judge.

High Court held that Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act is an enabling provision permitting the authority who filed the PMLA complaint to seek committal of ... Power of High Court u/s 447 of the BNSS to transfer criminal cases - Committal of scheduled offence to a Special Court u/s 44(1)(c) of the PML Act - Special Court jurisdiction and non-application of the Sessions-division proviso for transfers between Special Courts - Application of Cr.P.C./BNSS provisions to proceedings under the PML Act - Impossibility of joint trial of scheduled offences and offences under the PML Act - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act, it is evident that the same is an enabling provision inasmuch as the authority who filed complaint under the PML Act to request for committal of a case where cognizance for the schedule offences under the PML Act was taken by a court other than the PML Act court, so as to get committal of the case involving scheduled offence also to the PML Act court. It is not in dispute that joint trial of a case involving scheduled offence and PML Act offences is an outright impossibility. That is to say, only after finding the accused guilty for the scheduled offence/offences, on conclusion of trial, the trial of an accused, who involved in the PML Act offence is possible. Be it so, in view of Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act, the authority who filed complaint under the PML Act may seek committal of a case, for which cognizance was taken for the scheduled offence by a Special Court other than the PML Act court. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI vehemently canvassed that in view of Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act, the provisions of BNSS could not be invoked by an accused seeking transfer of a case pending, where the cognizance for the scheduled offences was taken by another Special Court. In fact, even though Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act provides so, that doesn’t exclude the right of any other aggrieved persons to file a transfer petition by invoking the relevant provisions of BNSS, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the E.D. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, for valid reasons, the person other than the authority who filed a complaint under the PML Act also can seek transfer of a case involving scheduled offences, to the PML Act court, when the court where the complaint alleging commission of PML Act offence is pending also is notified under the PC Act as well as under the PML Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI that, the petitioner, who is the accused in both cases, has no right to file a transfer petition by invoking the provisions of BNSS, could not be accepted. A party who wants to transfer a case from one Special Court to another Special Court can directly approach the High Court without approaching a Sessions Court, and such a course of action is legally permissible in terms of Section 447 of BNSS. Therefore, this contention raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI is not acceptable. In the instant case, the transfer sought is from a CBI court to another CBI court and both the courts are Special Courts notified under the PC Act as well as under the PML Act. Therefore, there is no harm in permitting trial of both the cases by the same Judge. Thus in the interest of justice, such a prayer is liable to be allowed. In the result, this Transfer Petition stands allowed. Issues: (i) Whether an accused can invoke Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to seek transfer of a case from one Special Court to another Special Court where a related PML Act complaint is pending, notwithstanding Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 447 (requiring prior application to the Sessions Judge for transfer within the same sessions division) bars direct recourse to the High Court for transfer between Special Courts constituted by statute.Issue (i): Whether an accused can invoke Section 447 BNSS to seek transfer of a scheduled-offence case to a Special Court where a related PML Act complaint is pending despite Section 44(1)(c) PML Act.Analysis: Section 44(1)(c) PML Act enables the authority empowered to file a complaint under the PML Act to apply for committal of a scheduled-offence case to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the PML Act complaint; the provision is enabling and contemplates committal on application by the authorised authority. Section 65 PML Act preserves applicability of Cr.P.C. and related transfer provisions insofar as they are not inconsistent with PML Act. Section 447 BNSS vests the High Court with power to transfer cases in the interest of justice. Where both origin and destination courts are Special Courts notified under the relevant special statutes, the right of other aggrieved persons to seek transfer under Section 447 BNSS is not ousted by Section 44(1)(c) PML Act.Conclusion: The accused may invoke Section 447 BNSS to seek transfer of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court where the PML Act complaint is pending; Section 44(1)(c) does not preclude such an application by the accused.Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 447 BNSS (requiring prior application to the Sessions Judge for transfers within the same sessions division) prevents direct approach to the High Court for transfer between Special Courts created by statute.Analysis: The proviso mirrors the Cr.P.C. provision requiring prior application to the Sessions Judge for intra-division transfers. Special Courts under the PML Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act are statutory creations with appointments and jurisdiction determined by their respective statutes. Transfers between Special Courts created by special statutes are not properly governed by the Sessions Judge administrative mechanism contemplated by the proviso; accordingly, a party may directly approach the High Court under Section 447 BNSS for transfer between such Special Courts.Conclusion: The proviso to Section 447 BNSS does not bar direct recourse to the High Court for transfer of a case from one statutorily constituted Special Court to another Special Court; prior application to the Sessions Judge is not required in that context.Final Conclusion: The High Court is empowered to order transfer of the scheduled-offence case from Special CBI Court-I, Ernakulam to Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam in the interest of justice so that related matters pending before a statutorily constituted Special Court may be dealt with by the same Judge.Ratio Decidendi: Where both origin and destination courts are Special Courts constituted by statute, an accused may invoke the High Court's transfer jurisdiction under Section 447 BNSS and need not first apply to the Sessions Judge; Section 44(1)(c) PML Act, being enabling for the authorised authority to seek committal, does not oust the right of an accused to seek transfer in the interest of justice.