JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 05.10.2020 (hereinafter ‗the impugned order‘) passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts in CC No. 42/2019. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has directed transfer of the trial of CC No. 42/2019 arising out of RC No.

217/2018/A/0004/CBI, to the Special Court (PMLA) at the Patiala House Courts Complex.

2. The Petitioner contends that since the Special Court (PMLA) is not empowered to try cases for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter the ‗PC Act‘), the impugned order transferring the case to such a court, which does not have the jurisdiction to decide it, is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

3. The controversy in the present case arises in the following factual context.

4. Respondent No. 1 (hereafter ‗CBI‘) registered two FIRs against the Petitioner herein. The first bearing RC No. 217/2018/A/0003 dated 01.05.2018 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‗IPC‘) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The second bearing RC No. 217/2018/A/0004 dated 05.05.2018 registered under Sections 348/120 of the IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act. On the basis of these FIRs, Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter the ‗ED‘) registered a common Enforcement Case Information Report bearing no. 03/HIU/2018 dated 09.05.2018.

5. On 31.07.2018, CBI filed the Final Report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereafter ‗Cr.PC‘), in respect of RC No. 217/2018/A/0003. Subsequently, proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the Petitioner were dropped for want of sanction for prosecution by the Competent Authority. The case was, thereafter, transferred to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Rouse Avenue Courts as the offences punishable under the PC Act were dropped. Thereafter, the ED filed a Prosecution Complaint dated 06.08.2018 under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter the ‗PMLA‘) before the Special Court (PMLA), Patiala House Courts. The ED also filed a Supplementary Complaint dated 26.10.2018. The learned Special Court (PMLA) has taken cognizance of the said complaints.

6. On 04.02.2019, the ED filed an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA before the CMM, Rouse Avenue Courts seeking a transfer of the proceedings emanating out of FIR bearing RC No. 217/2018/A/0003 dated 01.05.2018, from the said court to the court of the ASJ/Special Court, PMLA. The said application was allowed by an order dated 16.08.2019. The Petitioner challenged the said order by way of a Revision Petition before the Special Judge, PC Act, Rouse Avenue Courts. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 01.02.2020.

7. CBI completed the investigation in FIR bearing RC No. 217/2018/A/0004 dated 05.05.2018 under Sections 348/120 of the IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act (hereafter ‗FIR in question‘) and filed a chargesheet on 06.08.2018. Thereafter, CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet on 27.07.2020.

8. On 14.09.2020, the ED filed an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA before the learned Special Judge, PC Act, Rouse Avenue Courts seeking transfer of CC No. 42/2019 (arising from the FIR in question) to the Special Court, PMLA, Patiala House Courts. The said application was allowed by the impugned order dated

05.10.2020.

9. Mr. Arjun Dewan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 ought to be set aside since a Special Court constituted under the PMLA is not a notified Special Judge under the PC Act and thus, is not competent to try offences under the PC Act.

10. Mr. Dewan submits that the Scheduled Case against the Petitioner contains allegations of offences punishable under the PC Act and that the same are not triable by the Special Court (PMLA). He states that the language of Section 4 of the PC Act mandates that only