Under the governing legislation, a tribunal handling a predicate offence is statutorily mandated to transfer the matter to the designated special tribunal upon application by the investigating authority, regardless of the stage of trial, as the law prioritizes aligning predicate and money laundering proceedings.

ORDER :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

Calling into question the correctness of the order dated 18.3.2025 passed by the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, the unsuccessful complainant has preferred this original petition.

2.1. Cut to the chase, the facts run thus: The petitioner herein is the investigating agency, which, inter alia, enforces the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [the PMLA]. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are facing trial before the Principal Sessions Court, Special Court for PMLA cases, for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

2.2. It is stated that the first respondent herein had registered a criminal case against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, upon investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [the PC Act]. The case filed by the first respondent was numbered as C.C.No.19 of 2014 and is pending before the XIII Additional CBI Court, Chennai, at the stage of trial.

2.3. It is averred that the offences under the PC Act are scheduled offences and a prima face case of money laundering having been made out, the petitioner registered an enforcement case on 31.12.2014 and, upon investigation, a provisional attachment order dated 12.3.2015 was issued by the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. Consequently, under Section 5(5) of the PMLA, a complaint was filed before the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi and the same was confirmed on 26.5.2015 holding that the properties attached were proceeds of crime which were involved in money laundering.

2.4. The asseverations are to the effect that the petitioner, thereafter, filed a complaint under Section 44(1) of the PMLA against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai and the said complaint was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C. No.37 of 2015.

2.5. It is further stated that the trial of the predicate offence is well behind the trial of the offence of money laundering and several documents that have been examined in C.C.No.19 of 2014 are relevant to the case in C.C.No.37 of 2015 and should be led as evidence. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner filed an application before the CBI Court dealing the scheduled offence to transfer the scheduled offence case to the designated Special Court under the PMLA by virtue of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA. However, the CBI Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 18.3.2025. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Enforcement Directorate would submit that in view of the provisions contained in Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and the Supreme Court decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , ((2023) 12 SCC 1)  as well as Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement , ((2023) 4 SCC 357), no discretion is left with the court which has taken cognizance and is trying the predicate office, but to commit the case to the Special Court under the PMLA.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/CBI would submit that the CBI Court is a Special Court constituted under the PC Act, which has overriding effect over the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, in terms, does not mandate committal of a case being tried by the Special Court constituted under th