Madras High Court Rejects ED's Plea To Transfer Former Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan's Disproportionate Assets Trial To PMLA Court

ED had sought transfer of the case from Thoothukudi Sessions Court to the Special Court in Madurai, where it has filed a money laundering complaint based on the predicate offence.

ED relied on Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and sought to transfer the case, arguing that both the predicate case and the PMLA case should be tried by the same court.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the trial in the predicate offence, which was pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, had almost reached the final stage, and transferring the trial at such a stage would serve no legitimate purpose.

“The trial in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 has reached a stage where sending it to another court would cause real prejudice to the accused and serve no legitimate object of the statute,” the court said.

The bench also noted that ED's petition was premature, as the Special Court in Madurai had not taken cognisance of the case and had merely issued a pre-cognisance notice to Anitha and his family, calling upon them to appear before the court. The court emphasised that Section 44 of the PMLA was meant to save time and avoid the risk of two courts reaching different conclusions on the same facts, and the provision was never intended to serve as a means of reopening a trial, which had almost finished.

“Moreover, Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA exists to save time and to avoid the risk of two courts reaching different conclusions on the same facts. It was never meant to serve as a means of reopening a trial that has, for all practical purposes, already been fought and finished. Here, 79 prosecution witnesses and 312 exhibits stand examined and marked; the defence has led its own evidence through 6 witnesses and 74 exhibits; both sides have closed their evidence; the prosecution has completed its arguments and the defence has argued in substantial part. To commit such a case, at this stage, to the Special Court at Madurai, which has not even taken cognizance of the connected money laundering complaint would simply delay the case before the Thoothukudi Court, which is on the verge of conclusion,” the court noted.

The case against Anitha was that while serving as a Minister for Housing and Urban Development during 2001-2006, he acquired money and property far beyond his known sources of income, to about 2.08 crore. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, registered an FIR in 2006, and a final report was filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.

While the trial in the disproportionate asset case was ongoing, the Directorate of Enforcement pursued a separate case, treating the disproportionate asset as proceeds of crime. ECIR was registered, and a complaint was filed for an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. This complaint was yet to be taken cognisance of by the Special Court in Madurai.

Meanwhile, the ED filed an application before the Thoothukudi court under Section 44(1)(c) to commit the disproportionate asset case to the Special Court, so that both cases could be dealt with together. The Thoothukudi court rejected this application, noting that the ED could not file such an application before the court, which was not a designated PMLA court. To set aside this order, the ED approached the High Court.

The ED argued that the provisions of the PMLA would show that the legislature intended for the same Special Court to try both the scheduled offence and the money laundering case. The ED also argued that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA does not impose a pre-condition requiring cognisance by the Special Court. The ED also argued that no prejudice would be caused to anyone, as the Special Court would be bound to take up the matter from the very stage it was left off.

On the other hand, Anitha and other accused argued that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA applies only where the Special Court has taken cognisance of the offence. It was also argued that the ED had not produced the sanction, which was a pre-requisite to prosecute a public servant, and thus the Special Court in Madurai was legally incapable of taking cognisance. He thus argued that the ED's plea was premature.

The court noted that a bare reading of Section 44 (1)(c) of the PMLA makes it clear that only when both courts have taken cognisance, the mechanism of committal comes into play. The court also noted that the Special Court had not taken cognisance of the money laundering case. The court noted that the Special Court had only issued a notice under Section 223 of the BNSS. Thus, the court agreed that ED's petition was premature.

“Admittedly, one of the two essential facts on which Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is built, viz., cognizance by the Special Court, is not yet satisfied. An application asking the Thoothukudi Court to commit the case, even when cognizance was not taken by the Special Court, in our considered view, is premature,” the court said.

The court also noted that though the Special Court had asked for a sanction in September 2025, nearly a year had gone by and the ED had still not produced the same. The court noted that in the absence of sanction, the Special Court was not likely to take cognisance.

Thus, the court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Thoothukudi court and dismissed the plea. The court also directed the Thoothukudi Court to complete the trial at the earliest.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Sidharthan Special Public Prosecutor for ED Cases

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Arun Anbumani Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M. Dinesh Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for Mr. K. R. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. A. Nagarajan

Case Title: The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

Case No: Crl OP (MD) No.3792 of 2026