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, 1967. 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. (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. (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. (xiv)
In the meantime, the petitioner, who is Accused No.1, has come up with the above petition seeking transfer of the case from the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow to the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA at Ernakulam, Kerala. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner are: (i) that the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Lucknow are without jurisdiction, as all criminal activities alleged by the prosecution have admittedly taken place in Kerala; (ii) that 7 out of 10 accused are residents of Kerala, even as per the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint; (iii) that 12 out of 17 cited witnesses in the prosecution complaint dated 06.02.2021, 9 out of 14 witnesses cited in the supplementary complaint dated 06.05.2022 and 5 out of 9 witnesses cited in the combined prosecution complaint dated 18.11.2022 are from Kerala/South India; and (iv) that the petitioner was lawfully remanded to custody by learned Special Judge, Ernakulam under Section 167(2) of the Code and hence the filing of the prosecution complaint at Lucknow is impermissible. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General: (i) that the question of territorial jurisdiction is already settled by this Court in Rana Ayyub vs Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director and that if tested on the anvil of the principles laid down therein, the above transfer petition is misconceived; and (ii) that the petition for transfer, filed after the commencement of examination-in-chief of PW-1 and after the dismissal of the discharge application of one of the co-accused, is an abuse of the process of law.
Coming to the second question arising for our consideration, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 leaves no semblance of any doubt that the offence of money-laundering is triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence of money-laundering has been committed. In other words, a person may (i) acquire proceeds of crime in one place, (ii) keep the same in his possession in another place, (iii) conceal the same in a third place, and (iv) use the same in a fourth place.
Brief Summary of cause of action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 3.6
Moreover, in UP Police Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) FIR No 04/2021 dated 16.02.2021
[u/s 120B and 121A of IPC; 13, 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA; 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act and 3 and 25 of the Arms Act], two PFI members – (i) Anshad Badharudeen and (ii)
Firoz Khan were arrested by UP Police and improvised explosive devices, one 32 bore pistol and 7 live cartridges were seized from them.
In any case, the lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer.
The fact that the petitioner was remanded to custody by the learned Special Judge at Ernakulam under Section 167(2) of the Code and that, therefore, the filing of the complaint at Lucknow is impermissible, is not legally well-founded. Therefore, this transfer petition is dismissed.
Case Title: KA RAUF SHERIF Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (2023 INSC 347)
Case Number: T.P.(Crl.) No.-000089 / 2023
