The Special Court has jurisdiction to try scheduled offences related to money laundering, ensuring fairness and appropriate sentencing under the law.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Anuuj Taandon, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 BNSS , the applicant has challenged validity of an order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI West/ ED, Lucknow in complaint No. 2/2025 whereby an application filed by the applicant for transferring the case from Special Judge under PMLA Act to the Court of Magistrate has been rejected.

3. On 28.03.2014 the Directorate of Enforcement filed complaint no.1/2014 arising out of ECIR/15/PMLA/LZO/2012 in the Court of Session Judge, Lucknow. The aforesaid complaint has been filed against seven persons but the applicant has not been made an accused in the complaint. The complaint has been filed on the basis of scheduled offences regarding which FIRs No. 1/2011, 2/2011 and 3/2011 have been lodged by Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS), U.P. Police, Lucknow on 17.08.2011 at Police Station ATS for offences under Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC in which the applicant is also an accused person.

4. The charge sheet regarding scheduled offence were filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and on 03.02.2016, the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed an order committing the case to the Session Court as at that point of time, the Sessions Judge, Lucknow was the designated special court for trial of offence under Section 45 PMLA Act. Subsequently after creation of special court in PMLA, the trial has been transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA.

5. On 24.05.2024, the applicant filed an application seeking transfer of trial of the scheduled offence from the court of Special Court, PMLA to the court of Magistrate which application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 03.07.2024.

6. It is also relevant to note that the case was committed to the Special Court way back in the year 2016, the applicant has been participating in the trial since then. The application for transfer of case to the court of magistrate has only been filed in the year 2024.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the reason for filing an application is a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary v. Union of India : (2023) 12 SCC 1 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: -

“264. The petitioners may be justified in making grievance that the provision though permits the Special Court to proceed with the trial in respect of scheduled offence, yet it may be oppressive as against the accused who is not charged with the offence of money laundering but only scheduled offence. For, he may be denied of opportunity of one appeal or revision, as the case may be before the higher forum. Such a grievance can certainly be looked into by the Special Court if an application is moved by the authority authorised. Since we have held that the provision is only to bestow enabling power in the Special Court, it must follow that the Special Court will examine the request of the authority authorised for transfer of trial of predicate offence to itself on case-to-case basis. Similarly, request for trial of offence under another special statute, such as the PC Act, the NDPS Act, etc. can also be considered by the Special Court on case-to-case basis after examining all aspects of the matter.”

8. Assailing validity of the impugned order dated 03.07.2024 the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that al