https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789629 Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is explained as requiring committal of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court seized of the money-laundering complaint where the two courts are different, leaving no discretion to retain the matter once the authorised authority applies. The text also notes that where the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is already before a Special Court competent to try both enactments, transfer to that court is the proper course. The operative effect is that the money-laundering prosecution should proceed with the predicate-offence trial before the competent Special Court. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789629 Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is explained as requiring committal of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court seized of the money-laundering complaint where the two courts are different, leaving no discretion to retain the matter once the authorised authority applies. The text also notes that where the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is already before a Special Court competent to try both enactments, transfer to that court is the proper course. The operative effect is that the money-laundering prosecution should proceed with the predicate-offence trial before the competent Special Court. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789629