TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. This is a petition filed by a person arrayed as Accused No.1 in a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 For short, "the Code" read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 For short, "PMLA", seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.1004/2021 arising out of ECIR/02/HIU/2018, from the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow to the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA at Ernakulam, Kerala. 2. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner claims that he was the General Secretary of Campus Front of India,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018, in connection with the aforesaid scheduled/predicate offence for which those 22 persons were prosecuted and convicted. In column No.4 of the said ECIR, the place of occurrence was indicated as "8 Km West from Mayyil Police Station at Pamburuthi Road, Narath, Kannur District, Kerala". This ECIR was registered by the Enforcement Directorate, HIU, Headquarters at Delhi. (vi) Thereafter, a fresh complaint in FIR No.199/2020 was registered by Maunt Police Station, Mathura District, on 07.10.2020 for alleged offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 124A IPC and Sections 14 and 17 of UAPA read with Sections 65, 72 and 76 of the Information Technology Act. This FIR was against 4 persons and the petitioner was not named therein. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was recorded. Further examination of PW1 was deferred to 09.01.2023, on account of certain objections raised by the counsel for the accused. (xiii) It appears that thereafter a discharge application was filed on behalf of one of the accused, but the same was dismissed by the Special Court on 01.03.2023. After dismissing the discharge application, the Special Court has now posted the matter to 12.04.2023 for the examination of the listed witnesses. (xiv) In the meantime, the petitioner, who is Accused No.1, has come up with the above petition seeking transfer of the case from the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow to the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA at Ernakulam, Kerala. 4. The main grounds on which the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....co-accused, is an abuse of the process of law. 6. We have carefully considered the above submissions. 7. In Rana Ayyub (supra), two questions arose for consideration and they were as follows: "16. ...(i) whether the trial of the offence of moneylaundering should follow the trial of the scheduled/predicate offence or vice versa; and (ii) whether the Court of the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, CBI Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, can be said to have exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction, even though the offence alleged, was not committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court." 8. While dealing with the question No.1, in Rana Ayyub, this Court considered the interplay between Sections 43 and 44 of PMLA on the one hand and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; or (vi) claiming as untainted property. 39. In other words, a person may (i) acquire proceeds of crime in one place, (ii) keep the same in his possession in another place, (iii) conceal the same in a third place, and (iv) use the same in a fourth place. The area in which each one of these places is located, will be the area in which the offence of moneylaundering has been committed. To put it differently, the area in which the place of acquisition of the proceeds of crime is located or the place of keeping it in possession is located or the place in which it is concealed is located or the place in which it is used is located, will be the area in which the offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complaint. In any case, the lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer. A congenital defect of lack of jurisdiction, assuming that it exists, inures to the benefit of the accused and hence it need not be cured at the instance of the accused to his detriment. Therefore, the first ground on which transfer is sought, is liable to be rejected. 12. The second ground on which transfer is sought is that 7 out of 10 accused persons are residents of Kerala. But this can hardly be a ground for ordering the transfer of investigation. Similarly, the third ground that a majority of witnesses are also from Kerala/ South India is also no ground to order the transfer of the complaint. 13. The fact....