Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Danish Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko – Respondent
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 shee
The Special Court has jurisdiction to try scheduled offences related to money laundering, ensuring fairness and appropriate sentencing under the law.
The court affirmed that under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, the Special Court is designated to try both scheduled offences and money laundering offences, emphasizing legislative intent for discretion....
A Magistrate must duly consider all aspects before accepting a 'C' Summary Report, ensuring the informant's opportunity to be heard.
Point of Law : Application was not maintainable before learned Magistrate, since Court did not have the power to direct recording of statements for it to become a record under the PMLA, the order wh....
The High Court has the authority to permit the transfer of cases between Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption and Money Laundering Acts, despite statutory provisions suggesting otherwise....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of jurisdiction in trying cases and the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial.
Unsubstantiated allegations against judges do not warrant case transfer; judicial decorum mandates acceptance of court records as conclusive.
The offence of money laundering is independent of the scheduled offence trials, and the trial under PMLA continues irrespective of pending proceedings related to scheduled offences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
