Special Court jurisdiction under PMLA extends to the scheduled offence after committal under Section 44(1)(c).

A Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 acquires jurisdiction to try the scheduled offence once the case is committed to it under Section 44(1)(c), even if it is not the notified court for that offence. Section 44(1)(a) places the money-laundering offence and the connected scheduled offence before the Special Court for the area where the offence is committed, while Section 44(1)(c) expressly provides for committal where another court has taken cognizance and requires the Special Court to proceed from the committed stage. Section 71 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws, confirming the Special Court's competence after committal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, acquires jurisdiction to try a scheduled offence on committal of that case under Section 44(1)(c), even if it is not the notified court to try the scheduled offence.

Analysis: Section 44(1)(a) provides that the offence of money-laundering and the connected scheduled offence are triable by the Special Court for the area where the offence is committed. Section 44(1)(c) specifically contemplates committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court where cognizance has been taken by a different court, and mandates that the Special Court proceed from the stage at which the case is committed. Section 71 gives overriding effect to the Act over inconsistent laws. Reading these provisions together, the Special Court under the Act becomes competent to try the scheduled offence after committal.

Conclusion: The Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has jurisdiction to try the scheduled offence after committal under Section 44(1)(c), and the impugned order was sustained.

---