https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291353 Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was construed as conferring a discretionary power to seek committal of a scheduled offence, not a mandatory transfer in every case, because committal depends on an authorised officer's application and judicial scrutiny. The provision cannot be used to send a predicate offence to a Special Court that lacks independent jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Harmonious construction was applied to preserve the competence of the court otherwise empowered to try the scheduled offence, and the committal order was held unsustainable where the special PMLA court was not itself a competent corruption court. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2020 08:37:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291353 Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was construed as conferring a discretionary power to seek committal of a scheduled offence, not a mandatory transfer in every case, because committal depends on an authorised officer's application and judicial scrutiny. The provision cannot be used to send a predicate offence to a Special Court that lacks independent jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Harmonious construction was applied to preserve the competence of the court otherwise empowered to try the scheduled offence, and the committal order was held unsustainable where the special PMLA court was not itself a competent corruption court. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291353