TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Complaint No.06/2021 titled 'Enforcement Directorate v. Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society". 2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the memo of the writ petition, are that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings arising out of the affairs and alleged diversion of funds of Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and the entities stated to be associated with the Adarsh Group. On 20.06.2018, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had ordered investigation into the affairs of 124 Adarsh Group Companies and LLPs by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (for short 'SFIO'). On 28.12.2018, FIR No.24/2018 was registered by the Special Operations Group (SOG), Jaipur, against the petitioner and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of I.P.C. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, the SFIO filed Criminal Complaint No. COMA 05/2019 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Sections 43(2) & 3(i) of the LLP Act, 2008, along with its investigation report dated 09.05.2019. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, took cognizance of the said compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduled offence and the alleged offence of money laundering and would cause prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction to the respondent to again move an appropriate application under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram for committal of the proceedings in Case No. COMA/5/2019 to the Special Judge, PMLA, Jaipur, where the complaint under the PMLA is pending. 3. Reply in the form of a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that the present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The respondent has raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, contending that the proceedings in the SFIO case are pending before the competent court at Gurugram, Haryana, and that the judicial hierarchy of the said Court does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3.1 It is further submitted that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA does not make it obligatory upon the authorised authority to invariably seek committal of the scheduled offence and that the provision involves exercise of discretion in appropriate cases. 3.2 The respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 1023; Rajkumar Gulati vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Cri. WP [St] No. 5733/2024) decided on 14.03.2024; and Bharathi Cement Corpn. (P) Ltd. vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3559; to contend that the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is required to follow the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money laundering. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition and submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner substantially concerns the committal/transfer of proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, and that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue such a direction in respect of proceedings pending before a Court situated in the State of Haryana. It is submitted that the power to transfer criminal proceedings between Courts falling under the jurisdiction of different High Courts vests in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Learned counsel has further submitted that, since the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., other than an offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. 44. Offences triable by Special Courts. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed :- Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or (b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of offence under section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial. Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no offence of money laundering is made out requiring filing of such complaint, the said authority shall submit a closure report before the Special Court; or (c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authority authorised to file a complaint under the PMLA and, upon such application, committal of the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court. 9. The scope and effect of Sections 43 and 44 of the PMLA came up for detailed consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub (supra). While examining the statutory scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "22. Section 43(1) of the Act provides for the constitution of Special Courts, by the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High h Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 43 empowers a Special Court constituted under Section 43(1), also to try an offence other than the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, with which the accused may be charged at the same trial under the CrPC. In other words, a Special Court is constituted under Section 43(1) primarily for the purpose of trying an offence punishable under Section 4. But sub-section (2) of Section 43 confers an additional jurisdiction upon such a Special Court to try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial. 23. Section 43 reads as follows: "43. Special Courts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecial Court; or (c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed. (d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the offence 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. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that- (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial; (ii) the complaint shal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of money-laundering. 28. Therefore, it is clear that the trial of the scheduled offence should take place in the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering. In other words, the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering and not vice versa. 29. Since the Act contemplates the trial of the scheduled offence and the trial of the offence of money-laundering to take place only before the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1), a doubt is prone to arise as to whether all the offences are to be tried together. This doubt is sought to be removed by Explanation (i) to Section 44(1). Explanation (i) clarifies that the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial. 30. A careful dissection of clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 shows that they confer primacy upon the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) of the PMLA. These two clauses contain two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ognizance of the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering has been taken by different Courts, the statutory mechanism under Section 44(1)(c) is required to be followed, wherein the Court observed as under :- "3. In this petition, the allegations are irrelevant due to the limited issue at hand. The petitioner is arraigned as an accused in the charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the Special Court in Srinagar. Additionally, the Enforcement Directorate filed a prosecution complaint before the Special PMLA Court in Mumbai, in the investigation commenced based on the said offence, where the petitioner is also arraigned as an accused. Both courts have taken cognizance of the matter and the petitioner is currently out on bail. The petitioner challenges the order dated 04.03.2024, passed by the designated PMLA Court, which declined to direct the CBI Court in Srinagar to transfer the case to the designated PMLA Court in Mumbai. The petitioner seeks relief under Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act. Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act reads thus: "44. Offences triable by Special Courts- (1)(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not in dispute. The respondent registered ECIR No. JPZO/01/2019 and thereafter filed Complaint No. 06/2021 before the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Jaipur, wherein cognizance was taken on 08.09.2022. Thereafter, on 28.10.2022, the respondent itself invoked Section 44(1)(c) by filing an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, seeking committal of the SFIO proceedings to the Special Court at Jaipur. 14. The said application was subsequently withdrawn on 06.04.2023. Significantly, the respondent has not placed on record any material indicating that, between the filing and withdrawal of the application, there was any change in the factual or legal position warranting such withdrawal. The explanation that the application was withdrawn on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, by itself, does not satisfactorily explain why the statutory mechanism was thereafter abandoned altogether. 15. Once the respondent had itself treated the proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram as the scheduled offence connected with its PMLA proceedings at Jaipur and had invoked Section 44(1)(c), it was incumbent upon it to act consistently with the statuto....