Back
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL
KA Rauf Sherif – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
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 Poli
Lack of jurisdiction does not warrant transferring a case.
Section 3 reads as offence of money-laundering.
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 author....
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....
Jurisdiction for money laundering cases follows the location of predicate offences; the arrest and remand were valid under the PMLA.
Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lies where the cheque is presented for collection; mere inconvenience does not justify transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
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
