$~84, 89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(CRL.) 78/2025 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Simon Benjamin and Mr N.K.

Matta, SPPs for ED with Ms. Kanika Meena, Advocate.

versus ANUP MAJI ALIAS LALA .....Respondent Through:

+ TR.P.(CRL.) 58/2025 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Simon Benjamin and Mr N.K.

Matta, SPPs for ED with Ms. Kanika Meena, Advocate.

versus RUJIRA BANERJEE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nipun Saxena and Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 36515/2025 in TR.P.(CRL.) 78/2025 (seeking clarification of the order dated 16.09.2025);

CRL.M.A. 36585/2025 in TR.P.(CRL.) 58/2025 (seeking clarification of the order dated 08.08.2025)

1. These two applications under Section 528 BNSS seek clarification of this Court’s orders dated 8^th August, 2025 in TR.P.(CRL.) 58/2025 and 16^th September, 2025 in TR.P.(CRL.) 78/2025, whereby the complaint cases titled Directorate of Enforcement v. Rujira Banerjee (Ct. Case No. 1186/2021) and Directorate of Enforcement v. Anup Maji @ Lala (Ct. Case No. 201/2024) were transferred from the Court of the CJM, Patiala House Courts to Designated Court at Rouse Avenue, District Court dealing with the cases of PMLA.

2. The grievance of the Applicant is that, in consequence of the above orders, the matters came to be placed before the Special Court (PC Act/CBI) at Rouse Avenue, although both complaints concern an offence under Section 174 IPC, invoked by virtue of Section 63(4) PMLA, which is triable exclusively by a Magistrate and not by a Special Court constituted under Section 43 read with Section 44 PMLA.

3. It is also brought to the Court’s notice that, upon receipt of one such transferred complaint (Ct. Case No. 1186/2021), the Special Judge (PC Act/CBI-II), Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, passed a detailed order dated 30^th August, 2025, which reads as follows:

“Record perused. Record shows that this is a complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr. P.C. read with Section 200 of Cr. P.C. and Section 63(4) of The PMLA containing allegations that respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 174 of IPC by intentionally failing to appear pursuant to the summons issued to her under Section 50 of The PMLA.

Section 44(1)(a) of the PMLA provides as under:—

“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 section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed”.

Thus, it can be seen from the above that only the offence of money laundering committed under Section 3 of the PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, is triable by a Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed. Sections 63(4) and 65 of PMLA provide as under:

“63. … (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of sub-section (2), a person who intentionally disobeys any direction issued under section 50 shall also be liable to be proceeded against under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

65. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply.—The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act…”

It can be seen from the above that Section 63(4) of The PMLA expressly provides that a person who intentionally disobeys any direction under Section 50 of The PMLA shall be liable to be proceeded against under Section 174 of The IPC. Section 65 of the PMLA states that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code shall apply…

On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is an inescapable conclusion that a Special Court is only empowered to try and punish an accused who has committed an offenc