The trial for scheduled offences and money laundering offences must occur in a Special Court as outlined in Section 44(1) of PMLA, reflecting legislative intent for concurrent trials.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant criminal revision under Section 438 and 442 of B.N.S.S. (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023 is directed against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2020 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur PS Case No.13 of 2019 by the learned Court, Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 44(1) (c) of PML Act for committing the case relating to the scheduled offence to the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi has been rejected.

2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that vide order dated 13.12.2024 this Court while taking into consideration the adjournment sought by the opposite parties for filing response to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has directed to stay the trial in connection with Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2020 arising out of ACB Jamshedpur PS Case No.13 of 2019.

3. The opposite party namely Alok Ranjan has preferred a SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 197 of 2025 against the order dated 13.12.2024 and the said SLP was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2025 wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply for vacating the interim order dated 13.12.2024 and directed the High Court to decide the application, if filed, in accordance with law.

4. The matter was heard on 17.01.2025 and on that day learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 have jointly submitted that no such application has been filed rather they have submitted that the matter may be decided on merit finally since the counter-affidavit has already been filed in the case.

5. On the pretext of the aforesaid submission this Court has heard both the parties at length and since the pleadings were completed, the instant case was reserved for final adjudication by this Court.

Factual Matrix of the case:

6. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant case in brief reads as under:

6.1 The ACB Jamshedpur registered an FIR No. 13/2019 dated13.11.2019 registered u/s 7(a) of PC Act, 2018 against Shri Suresh OP. Prasad Verma (O.P. No. 3), then Jr. Engineer working in the Road Construction Department. The perusal of the said FIR further reveals that Vikas Kumar Sharma, s/o Shri Ramnath Sharma (a contractor working on behalf of her mother's firm M/s Jai Mata Di Enterprises) filed a complaint before the ACB Jamshedpur, against Suresh Prasad Verma alleging therein that Suresh Prasad Verma had demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 28,000/- against clearing of remaining amount of Rs. 4,54,964/- to be paid out of the total bill amount of Rs. 11,54,964/- as per the tender requirement. Subsequently, ACB laid a trap and caught Suresh Prasad Verma red-handed taking a partial bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the contractor and arrested him on 14.11.2019. The same day, ACB conducted a search operation on the residential premises of Smt.Pushpa Verma W/o Suresh Prasad Verma and seized cash of Rs. 63,870/- along with household jewellery, property and bank documents from the space owned by Smt. Pushpa Verma and it is noted that the rented premise on the first floor was sealed as the keys were not available.

6.2 Further, a search was also conducted on the next day i.e. on15.11.2019 in the rented premises on the 1^st floor of the same house which was in possession of O.P. No. 2 i.e. Alok Ranjan, and a huge cash amount of Rs. 2.67 Crore was seized from the almirah of one bedroom. Subsequently, Alok Ranjan was ar