1. Petition seeking transfer of a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act from one Special Court to another based on territorial jurisdiction and convenience. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
KA Rauf Sherif – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. – Respondents
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.89 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Abdul Shukoor Mondambra, Adv. Mr. Shaikh S.Dastgir, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Nikali Barsha, Adv. Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. V. Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K. Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Abdul Shukoor Mondambra, Adv. Mr. Shaikh S.Dastgir, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Nikali Barsha, Adv. Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. V. Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K. Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Lack of jurisdiction does not warrant transferring a case.
Headnote:Transfer - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The court discussed the jurisdictional aspects under the PMLA and UAPA in relation to the transfer of a criminal case. It cited Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement to establish the principles for determining territorial jurisdiction under PMLA. The judgment emphasized that the lack of jurisdiction of a court to entertain a complaint is not grounds for ordering its transfer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought transfer of a criminal case from Lucknow to Ernakulam based on jurisdictional grounds.Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the transfer petition as it found no legally valid and justifiable grounds for the transfer.Issues:
Jurisdictional aspects under PMLA and UAPA in relation to the transfer of a criminal case.Ratio Decidendi:
Lack of jurisdiction of a court to entertain a complaint is not grounds for ordering its transfer.Final Decision:
The transfer petition was dismissed by the court.Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges lack of territorial jurisdiction and party inconvenience; respondent contends jurisdiction is established by money-laundering activities and the petition is an abuse of process. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Territorial jurisdiction for money-laundering is determined by where any activity—acquisition, possession, concealment, or use of proceeds of crime—occurred, regardless of the predicate offence's location. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. The Special Court for the area where any process or activity constituting money-laundering under Section 3, PMLA occurs has territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. (Para 9 )
5. Transfer petition dismissed. (Para 15 )
6. How is territorial jurisdiction determined for offences under the PMLA?
Jurisdiction is determined by the area where the offence of money-laundering was committed. This includes any location where proceeds of crime were acquired, possessed, concealed, used, or projected or claimed as untainted property. (Para 9 )
7. Does the location of the scheduled or predicate offence dictate the jurisdiction for the money-laundering trial?
No. Territorial jurisdiction for a PMLA complaint is decided by where the activities constituting the offence under Section 3 took place, irrespective of where the FIR for the scheduled offence was filed or which court took cognizance of it. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. Does a remand order passed by a Magistrate without jurisdiction to try the case affect the legality of filing a complaint in another court?
No. Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate to whom an accused is forwarded may pass a remand order regardless of whether they have jurisdiction to try the case. (Para 13 , 14 )
9. Are the residence of the accused or the location of witnesses valid grounds for transferring a PMLA case?
The court held that the fact that the majority of accused persons are residents of a particular state or that most witnesses are from a specific region does not constitute a valid ground for ordering the transfer of a complaint. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. This is a petition filed by a person arrayed as Accused No.1 in a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate, under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[For short, “the Code”] read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 20022[[For short, “PMLA”], seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.1004/2021 arising out of ECIR/02/HIU/2018, from the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow to the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA at Ernakulam, Kerala.
2. We have heard Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner claims that he was the General Secretary of Campus Front of India, which is now banned as an unlawful association, vide Notification issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.09.2021 under Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19673[For short, “UAPA”]. The circumstances under which the petitioner has come up with the above transfer petition are as follows:
(i) A complaint in FIR No.276/2013 was registered on 23.04.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District, against 22 persons for alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 153B and 149 IPC read with Section 5(1)(a) and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 18 of UAPA. The said complaint was later re-registered by the National Investigation Agency4[For short, “NIA”] on 07.08.2013.
(ii) After investigation, NIA filed a chargesheet on 19.10.2013 in the said case against those 22 accused.
(iii) After trial, the Special Court, NIA, Ernakulam, convicted 21 persons by a judgment dated 20.01.2016. The High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction in relation to the offences under the IPC, but acquitted them for the offences under Section 18 of UAPA. The special leave petition filed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala was dismissed by this Court.
(iv) The petitioner herein was not an accused in the aforesaid case.
(v) After the conviction of all those in the aforesaid proceedings, the Enforcement Directorate registered an information report in ECIR/02/HIU/2018 on 02.05.2018, in connection with the aforesaid scheduled/predicate offence for which those 22 persons were prosecuted and convicted. In column No.4 of the said ECIR, the place of occurrence was indicated as “8 Km West from Mayyil Police Station at Pamburuthi Road, Narath, Kannur District, Kerala”. This ECIR was registered by the Enforcement Directorate, HIU, Headquarters at Delhi.
(vi) Thereafter, a fresh complaint in FIR No.199/2020 was registered by Maunt Police Station, Mathura District, on 07.10.2020 for alleged offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 124A IPC and Sections 14 and 17 of UAPA read with Sections 65 , 72 and 76 of the Information Technology Act. This FIR was against 4 persons and the petitioner was not named therein.
(vii) However, in connection with the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate on 02.05.2018, the petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2020. Subsequently, a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of PMLA was filed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement, New Delhi on the file of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow against 5 persons, including the petitioner herein who was arrayed as Accused No.1. This complaint arose out of ECIR/02/HIU/2018.
(viii) Thereafter, a chargesheet came to be filed on 02.04.2021, before the Additional District Judge-1, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, in connection with FIR No.199/2020 which was registered on 07.10.2020. This chargesheet was against 7 named accused and the petitioner herein was shown as Accused No.5.
(ix) Thereafter, a supplementary complaint was filed by the Enforcement Directorate on 06.05.2022 against 2 individuals and 2 corporate entities on the file of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow.
(x) It was followed by the registration of a supplementary/ combined prosecution complaint agai
