2026:MHC:922Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 21.11.2025

DELIVERED ON : 05.03.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

CRL OP No.8776 of 2025

and CRL MP No.5762 of 2025

The Deputy Director

Directorate of Enforcement,

Chennai Zonal Office,

5th and 6th Floor, BSNL Administrative Building,

No 2, Kush Kumar Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

... Petitioner

Vs

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Central Bureau of Investigation,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Chennai.

2. Dr.P.Vijayan

S/o. Late V.Perumal,

Shrikrishnalaya, No.3/308

AGS Colony Main Road,

Kottivakkam Seaside,

Chennai - 600 041.

______________

Page 1 of 19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

3. V.Anitha

W/o.Dr.P.Vijayan,

Shrikrishnalaya, No.3/308,

AGS Colony Main Road,

Kottivakkam Seaside,

Chennai - 600 041

... Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 538 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 18.03.2025 in Crl.MP.

Np.154 of 2025 in C.C.No.19 of 2014 passed by the XIII Additional

Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai and to consequently transfer

the case in CC.No.19 of 2014 pending before the XIII Additional

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, to the Principal Sessions

Judge, Chennai under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA in the interest

of justice.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil

Special Public Prosecutor

For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Mohan,

Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

for R1

Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

for R2 and R3

______________

Page 2 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

ORDER

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

Calling into question the correctness of the order dated

18.3.2025 passed by the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI

Cases, Chennai, the unsuccessful complainant has preferred this

original petition.

2.1. Cut to the chase, the facts run thus: The petitioner herein

is the investigating agency, which, inter alia, enforces the

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [the PMLA]. Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 are facing trial before the Principal Sessions Court,

Special Court for PMLA cases, for the offence under Section 3 of the

PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

2.2. It is stated that the first respondent herein had registered

a criminal case against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, upon

investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Principal Special

Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, for the offences punishable under

______________

Page 3 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 [the PC Act]. The case filed by the first

respondent was numbered as C.C.No.19 of 2014 and is pending

before the XIII Additional CBI Court, Chennai, at the stage of trial.

2.3. It is averred that the offences under the PC Act are

scheduled offences and a prima face case of money laundering

having been made out, the petitioner registered an enforcement

case on 31.12.2014 and, upon investigation, a provisional

attachment order dated 12.3.2015 was issued by the petitioner in

exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) of the PMLA.

Consequently, under Section 5(5) of the PMLA, a complaint was

filed before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi and the

same was confirmed on 26.5.2015 holding that the properties

attached were proceeds of crime which were involved in money

laundering.

2.4. The asseverations are to the effect that the petitioner,

thereafter, filed a complaint under Section 44(1) of the PMLA

against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offence of money laundering

______________

Page 4 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the

PMLA on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai and the

said complaint was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C.

No.37 of 2015.

2.5. It is further stated that the trial of the predicate offence

is well behind the trial of the offence of money laundering and

several documents that have been examined in C.C.No.19 of 2014

are relevant to the case in C.C.No.37 of 2015 and should be led as

evidence. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner filed an

application before the CBI Court dealing the scheduled offence to

transfer the scheduled offence case to the designated Special Court

under the PMLA by virtue of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA.

However, the CBI Court dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner vide order dated 18.3.2025. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the petitioner/Enforcement Directorate would submit that in view of

the provisions contained in Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and the

Supreme Court decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of

______________

Page 5 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

India

1

as well as Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement

2

, no

discretion is left with the court which has taken cognizance and is

trying the predicate office, but to commit the case to the Special

Court under the PMLA.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first

respondent/CBI would submit that the CBI Court is a Special Court

constituted under the PC Act, which has overriding effect over the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, in terms,

does not mandate committal of a case being tried by the Special

Court constituted under the special enactment in respect of the

offences specified in the special enactment.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2

and 3 made similar submission as that of counsel for respondent

No.1/CBI.

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced on either side.

1

(2023) 12 SCC 1

2

(2023) 4 SCC 357

______________

Page 6 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

7. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, it is

apposite to reproduce Section 43 and 44 of the PMLA hereunder:

"43. Special Courts.

(1) The Central Government, in consultation with the

Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offence

punishable under section 4 by notification designate one

or more Courts of Session as Special Court or Special

Courts for such area or areas or for such case or class or

group of cases as may be specified in the notification.

Explanation.- In this sub-section, “High Court” means the

High Court of the State in which a Sessions Court

designated as Special Court was functioning immediately

before such designation.

(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court

shall also try an offence, 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.

Section 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

______________

Page 7 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

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 authorized 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 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 authorized 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

______________

Page 8 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

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 shall be deemed to include any

subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation

that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral

or documentary, against any accused person involved in

respect of the offence, for which complaint has already

been filed, whether named in the original complaint or

not.

(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

______________

Page 9 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

Special Court designated under section 43.”

8. A Special Court is constituted under Section 43(1) of the

PMLA primarily for the purpose of trying an offence punishable

under Section 4 of the PMLA. Sub section (2) of Section 43 of the

PMLA confers additional jurisdiction upon such Special Court to try

any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the

same trial.

9. Under Section 44(1) of the PMLA, an offence punishable

under Section 4 of the PMLA 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.

10. From a cursory glance of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, it

can be deduced that 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

______________

Page 10 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

authorized 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.

11. Section 44 of the PMLA silhouettes two categories of

cases, to wit, (i) cases involving offence of money laundering and

any scheduled offence connected thereto; and (ii) cases where 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.

12. In order to answer the issues formulated herein above, it

is seemly to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rana

Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra). In the said decision,

the Supreme Court considered two issues:

(i) Whether the trial of the offence of money-

laundering should follow the trial of the

scheduled/predicate offence or vice versa; and

(ii) Whether the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-

______________

Page 11 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

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?

13. The Supreme Court emphatically held that Section 44(1)

(a) of the PMLA lays down the most fundamental rule relating to

territorial jurisdiction, by providing that an offence punishable under

Section 4 of the PMLA and any scheduled offence connected to the

same shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in

which the offence has been committed, and that Section 44(1)(a) of

the PMLA uses the expression "offence" in three places in

contradistinction to the expression "scheduled offence" used only

once. This usage is not without significance. In all three places

where the word "offence" alone is used, it connotes the offence of

money-laundering. The place where the expression "scheduled

offence" is used, it connotes the predicate offence. By prescribing

that an offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA and any

scheduled offence connected to the same shall be triable by the

Special Court constituted for the area in which "the offence" has

been committed, Section 44(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that it is

______________

Page 12 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

the Special Court constituted under Section 44(1), which will be

empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the

same.

14. The Supreme Court then dealt with a situation as to what

happens if the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled

offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance

of the offence of money-laundering. It was held that if the Court

which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is different

from the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of

money laundering, then the authority authorized to file a complaint

under PMLA should make an application to the Court which has

taken cognizance of the scheduled offence. On the application so

filed, the Court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled

offence, should commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to

the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of

money-laundering. Since the PMLA 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

______________

Page 13 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

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.

15. The proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in the

aforesaid decision leaves no room for doubt that the trial of the

scheduled offence should take place in the Special Court which has

taken cognizance of the office of money laundering. In other words,

the trial of the scheduled offence, in so far as the question of

territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the

offence of money laundering and not vice versa.

16. In view of the above, when an application is filed before

the CBI Court dealing with the scheduled offence, seeking to

transfer the scheduled offence to the designated Special Court

under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, the CBI Court is mandated and

left with no other option than to transfer the scheduled offence case

to the designated Special Court under the PMLA. The impugned

order of the trial court rejecting the application, holding that the

______________

Page 14 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

trial in the scheduled offence is in an advanced stage and that the

transfer to the designated Special Court under the PML Act would

delay the trial, is in the teeth of the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement

(supra) and as such, the impugned order is perverse and cannot be

sustained.

17. However, further question arises as to whether the same

position would apply to a situation, where the predicate offence is

an offence under a special enactment and is being tried by a special

court constituted under the special enactment, viz., the PC Act and

the Special Court under the PMLA is not a designated Special Court

under the PC Act. In view of the overriding effect contained in the

provisions of PMLA and being a special Act, would the Special Court

under the PMLA impliedly vest with jurisdiction to try the scheduled

offence under the PC Act, on the case being transferred to it under

Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA.

18. Before delving into that issue, we find in the facts of the

present case that when the Special Court constituted under the

______________

Page 15 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

PMLA is not a designated Special Court under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, however the CBI Court, which is trying the

scheduled predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

incidentally is also a designated Special Court under the PMLA.

19. In a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Inspector

of Police and another [SLP Diary No.18882 of 2022 dated

30.09.2022] based on the statement of the Additional Solicitor

General, that the case under the PMLA, may be transferred to the

Special Court which is trying the scheduled predicate offence under

the PC Act, 1988, as that the said Court is competent to try both

cases, by keeping the legal issue open, directed the case from the

Special Court under the PMLA to be transferred to the Special Court

trying the predicate offence under the PC Act. The relevant portion

reads as below:-

“Mr.Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor

General, on instructions from the appellant and respondent No.

1, states that the case under the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 may be transferred to the Court of the

Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, Kerala, which is in seisin

______________

Page 16 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

of the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He

states that the said court is competent to try both cases.

The statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor

General is taken on record. Accordingly, we direct the case/

prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

would be transferred to the Court of the Special Judge

(SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, Kerala, where the trial in the case

under the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is pending. We

clarify that the we have not commented on the merits of the

legal issue raised, which is left open.

Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and

disposed of.”

20. Taking note of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, as in the instant case also, the Special Court trying

the predicate scheduled offence under the PC Act, is also a

designated Special Court under the PMLA, which is competent to try

both cases, whereas the Special Court under the PMLA is not a

designated Special Court under the PC Act, by keeping the larger

issue open to be decided in an appropriate case, we deem it fit to

follow the same proposition.

21. Ergo, the impugned order is set aside and we direct the

case in C.C.No.37 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal

______________

Page 17 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

Sessions Judge, Chennai, under PMLA, be transferred to the XIII

Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, which is trying the

predicate scheduled offence in C.C.No.19 of 2014 under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

22. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed

with the above directions.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

05.03.2026

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation: Yes

sasi/sri

To:

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Central Bureau of Investigation,

Anti Corruption Bureau, Chennai.

______________

Page 18 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.8776 of 2025

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(sasi)/sri

CRL OP No.8776 of 2025

and CRL MP No.5762 of 2025

05.03.2026

______________

Page 19 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis