https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446142 The HC affirmed a Metropolitan Magistrate's order directing transfer of a scheduled offence case to the Special Designated Court under PMLA, 2002. The court held that conjoint reading of Section 44(1)(a), Section 44(1)(c) and explanations establishes legislative intent for the same Special Designated Court to try both money laundering offences and related scheduled offences. Given identical subject matter, factual foundation, and interconnected outcomes, harmonious construction mandates the Special Designated Court's jurisdiction over scheduled offences in such circumstances. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Aug 2024 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446142 The HC affirmed a Metropolitan Magistrate's order directing transfer of a scheduled offence case to the Special Designated Court under PMLA, 2002. The court held that conjoint reading of Section 44(1)(a), Section 44(1)(c) and explanations establishes legislative intent for the same Special Designated Court to try both money laundering offences and related scheduled offences. Given identical subject matter, factual foundation, and interconnected outcomes, harmonious construction mandates the Special Designated Court's jurisdiction over scheduled offences in such circumstances. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 22 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446142