TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011; 42 of 2011; 39 of 2011; 24 of 2013; 21 of 2013; 19 of 2013; 20 of 2013; 22 of 2013; 18 of 2013 and 41 of 2011 respectively, have filed the captioned petitions seeking to transfer the aforesaid cases pending on the file of the Court of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, (Banks and Financial Institutions) to the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, (Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act), where C.C.No.20 of 2015 filed by the second respondent, namely, Directorate of Enforcement, is pending. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/ accused in all these cases have entered into a Criminal Conspiracy with Shri Kumar @ Vijayakumar and others and by abusing their official position sanct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CBI, ACB, Chennai, has filed a separate counter in all these cases opposing the relief sought for by the petitioners/ accused. It is contended that the instant petitions filed by the accused seeking transfer of the cases pending on the file of the Special Court, CBI to the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, are not maintainable and the same have been filed only to protract the cases. According to the 1st respondent, under Section 44 of the Act, 2002 only the scheduled offences can be tried jointly by the Special Court constituted under the said Act and as the charges framed by the CBI Court contains the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and as the said offences are not scheduled in the Act, 2002 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, has also filed a private complaint before the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, which is constituted for trying the cases contemplated under the Act, 2002 and same has also been taken cognizance by the the Special Court for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the second respondent has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Court constituted for the said Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, alone is competent to try the cases. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for allowing the petitions. 9. No doubt, the Special Court for Prevention of Money L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted; (d) a Special Court while trying the Scheduled offence of the office of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session. (2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a "Special Court" designated under Section 43." 11. The above section makes it clear that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers and these offences are not scheduled in the Act, 2002. 13. Therefore, as discussed above, merely because private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before the Special Court with regard to Money laundering, it cannot be stated that the cases investigated by the CBI with regard to the aforesaid crime also have to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2002. If such view has been taken by this Court, there will be unwarranted delay in entire criminal prosecution launched by the CBI before the concerned Court. The object of constituting a Special Court is only to speed up the trial with regard to money laundering. Therefore, as long as the money laundering offence has not been charged by the CBI, investigation do....