Special Court Under PMLA Is Legally Competent To Try Scheduled Offence After Committal: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is legally competent to try a scheduled offence once the case is committed to it under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act, even if that court is not independently notified to try the particular offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354]Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in...
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is legally competent to try a scheduled offence once the case is committed to it under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act, even if that court is not independently notified to try the particular offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354]
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging an order transferring a Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) case from the Special CBI Court, Ernakulam, to the Special PMLA Court at Kozhikode for a joint trial with the connected money laundering prosecution.
The Court examined whether a Special Court designated under the PMLA has jurisdiction to try a scheduled offence after its committal under Section 44(1)(c), even though another Special Court is specifically notified to try that scheduled offence under the relevant substantive statute.
The CBI, and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), argued that the Special PMLA Court lacked jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that both the PC Act prosecution and the money laundering case ought to be tried by the Special CBI Court at Ernakulam.
One of the accused, who is arrayed as a respondent in the present petition contended that Sections 44(1)(a), 44(1)(c), and 71 of the PMLA expressly permit the Special PMLA Court to try both the money laundering offence and the connected scheduled offence after committal, notwithstanding the existence of another notified court.
The Respondents placed reliance on Delhi High Court decision in Upendra Rai v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another and its earlier decision in Inspector of Police, CBI v Assistant Director of Enforcement [2019 (5) KHC 707] where it was held that if a case involving the scheduled offence under the PC Act is committed to a Special Court constituted under the PML Act, such court will have jurisdiction to try the case so committed.
The Court examined the Section 44(1)(a) and Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act and noted that the Sections establish a mechanism whereby a scheduled offence pending before another court may be committed to the Special PMLA Court, which would thereafter proceed with the trial from the stage at which the case was transferred.
The Court also referred to Section 71 of the PMLA, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions contained in other laws.
The Court thus held that once a scheduled offence is committed under Section 44(1)(c), the Special PMLA Court is vested with full jurisdiction to try the scheduled offence, irrespective of whether it is separately notified under the law governing that offence.
“It is held that a Special Court constituted under the PML Act, on committal of a case under Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act, is legally competent and having jurisdiction to try the scheduled offence/offences even though the same is not a notified court to try the scheduled offence/offences. In view of the above, the order impugned is only to be sustained and this petition is liable to be dismissed.” the Court observed.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Case No: OP (Crl.) 111/ 2026
Counsel for Petitioner: Sreelal N. Warrier (Spl. PP)
Counsel for Respondents: A. Sudhi Vasudevan (Sr.), Jose Jones Joseph, M. Ajay, Diya Nagaraj, V.P. Prasad, Jaisanker V. Nair (SC - ED)