Karnataka High Court
State By Directorate Of Enforcement vs K T Madashetty on 16 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
CRL.RP No. 607 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 607 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
STATE BY DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. DIRECTOR
GOVT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPT OF REVENUE
3RD FLOOR 'B' BLOCK
Digitally signed
by SUDHA S BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR
Location: HIGH KH ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SMT. N SOMASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K T MADASHETTY
S/O KN TANDAVA MUNISHETTY
AGED MAJOR
ASST. ENGINEER (CIVIL) GRADE-1
KRIDL, HUMNABAD DIVISION
RESIDING AT NO.58
2ND CROSS 2ND STAGE
GANGOTHRI BADAVANE
MYSURU - 570 006.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
CRL.RP No. 607 of 2021
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKAR HEGDE PURANDER, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
CGSC FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2020
PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.69/2014 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU
THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/ED UNDER SEC. 44(1)(c) OF PREVENTION OF
MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 AND THEREBY REFUSING TO
COMMIT THE PENDING SCHEDULED OFFENCES CASE IN
SPL.C.NO.69/2014 FROM THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU TO THE FILE OF
THE XLVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGAORE (CCH-48) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
CRL.RP No. 607 of 2021
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2020 in Special Case
No.69/2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mysuru, in which the application filed by the petitioner herein
under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act') seeking to commit the case in
Spl.C.No.69/2010 to the XLVII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-48) (Designated Special
Court, PMLA) was rejected.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The second respondent registered the FIR in Crime
No.16/2010 against the first respondent / accused for the
offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'). The
second respondent conducted a detailed investigation and
submitted charge sheet against the first respondent / accused.
The Special Court was pleased to take cognizance and
registered a case in Spl.C.No.69/2014. In the meantime, the
Directorate of Enforcement / petitioner herein also conducted
investigation for the offence punishable under the PML Act. A
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
complaint came to be filed by the petitioner herein before the
XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-48) against the first respondent for the
offences punishable under Section 45(1) r/w Sections 3, 4 and
8(5) of the PML Act. The Special Judge took cognizance and
registered a criminal case in Spl.C.C.No.279/2018 and
summons were issued against the accused. An application
under Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act was filed by the petitioner
herein in Spl.C.No.69/2014 seeking to transfer the case from
the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Mysuru to the Special Court constituted under the PML Act to
try such offences. The said application came to be rejected.
Hence this revision petition.
3. Heard Sri Unnikrishnan M, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Shankar P.Hegde, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is
contrary to law, facts and materials available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ka Rauf Sherif v.
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
Directorate of Enforcement & Others1 and prays to allow this
revision.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1
vehemently justified the order passed by the Trial Court and
submitted that two offences are distinct and different and there
is no occasion for clubbing those two matters for trial would
arise. Hence, interference with the order passed by the Trial
Court on the application filed under Section 44(1)(c) of the PML
Act may not be necessary and transfer of the case from Mysuru
to Special Court, situated at Bengaluru may not be proper.
Making such submission, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the
findings of the Trial Court in rejecting the application, now it is
relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ka Rauf Sherif stated supra, para No.8 read thus:
"8. While dealing with the question No.1, in
Rana Ayyub, this Court considered the
interplay between Sections 43 and 44 of
(2023) 6 SCC 92
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
PMLA on the one hand and the provisions of
Sections 177 to 184 of the Code on the other
hand and held in paragraph 36 as follows:
"36. Once this combined scheme is
understood, it will be clear that in view
of the specific mandate of clauses (a)
and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
44, it is the Special Court constituted
under the PMLA that would have
jurisdiction to try even the scheduled
offence. Even if the scheduled offence
is taken cognizance of by any other
Court, that Court shall commit the
same, on an application by the
concerned authority, to the Special
Court which has taken cognizance of
the offence of money-laundering. This
answers the first question posed
before us."
On careful reading of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it
makes it clear that the special Court constituted under the
PMLA would have jurisdiction to try even scheduled offence.
Even if such offence is taken cognizance by any other Court
and that Court shall commit the same to the special Court.
Having considered the said principle it is appropriate to allow
the application filed by the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:1890
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16.12.2020 in Special Case
No.69/2014 passed by the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Mysuru is set aside.
(iii) The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mysuru, is directed to transfer the case in
Special Case No.69/2014 to the Special Court
constituted at Bengaluru namely Court of XLVII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-48) (designated
Special Court, PMLA), within a period of four
weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS
