Money-laundering special court jurisdiction requires transfer of the scheduled offence when statutory committal under PMLA applies.

Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 contemplates committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court where the money-laundering complaint is already seised there, and the scheduled offence and PMLA matter are to proceed before the Special Court without amounting to a joint trial. The Madras HC noted that this transfer principle applies where the predicate offence court is different from the PMLA Special Court. On the facts discussed, the scheduled corruption case was already before a Special Court competent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, so transfer to that forum was considered appropriate and the refusal to transfer was treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence was bound to commit the case to the Special Court which had taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint, and whether that consequence continued where the scheduled offence was pending before a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was also competent to try PMLA cases.

Analysis: Section 43 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 constitutes Special Courts for trial of the offence punishable under Section 4, while Section 44(1) provides that the offence of money-laundering and the connected scheduled offence are triable by the Special Court. The provision in clause (c) contemplates committal of the scheduled offence case where the court first seised of the scheduled offence is different from the Special Court that has taken cognizance of the PMLA complaint. The interpretation placed on the provision was reinforced by the Supreme Court authority relied upon, which treated the Special Court under the PMLA as the forum before which the scheduled offence should also proceed and clarified that such trial is not to be understood as a joint trial. On the facts, however, the scheduled offence was already pending before a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that court was also competent to try the PMLA matter, whereas the PMLA Special Court was not the designated court under the PC Act. In that situation, the same practical transfer arrangement was considered appropriate, leaving the larger legal question open.

Conclusion: The application for transfer was maintainable and the impugned refusal was unsustainable; the scheduled offence case was directed to be transferred to the Special Court trying the predicate offence, and the petitioner succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order of the trial court was set aside and the connected proceedings were directed to continue before the court already seized of the predicate corruption case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is attracted, the authority prosecuting money-laundering may seek committal of the scheduled offence, and the court seised of that scheduled offence cannot refuse transfer on grounds such as stage of trial when the statutory scheme requires the PMLA Special Court to proceed with both matters.

---