[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sabu K.S vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
TR.P(CRL.) NO. 3 OF 2026
CC NO.3 OF 2014 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SABU K.S, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O K SREEDHARAN NAIR, SIVASANNIDHI, KIZHUVILLAM P.O,
MAMMOM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695304.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SHRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SMT.ANNA LINDA EDEN
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
SMT.ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR
SMT.ANJALI KRISHNA
SHRI.ABHINAV P. S.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE, KANOOS CASTLE, MULLASSERY CANAL
ROAD WEST, COCHIN -, PIN - 682011.
2026:KER:8947
Tr.P.(Crl.).No.3/2026 2
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
ADV. JAISHANKER V.NAIR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16.01.2026, THE COURT ON 02.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8947
Tr.P.(Crl.).No.3/2026 3
`C.R'
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Tr.P(Crl.) No.3 of 2026
================================
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2026
ORDER
Sabu K.S, who is the accused in C.C.No.3/2014, pending before
the Special CBI Court-I, Ernakulam, has filed this transfer petition under
Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS'
for short hereafter). The prayer in the petition is to transfer the entire
records in C.C.No.3/2014 pending before the Special CBI Court-I,
Ernakulam to Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam, where the case
pertaining to the predicate offences, i.e offences under Section 13(1)(e)
r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for
short), numbered as S.C.No.329/2017, has been pending, for
consideration of the same simultaneously by the same Judge. Sabu K.S
is the sole accused in S.C.No.329/2017 also.
2026:KER:8947
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent (CBI)
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Directorate of
Enforcement of Cochin Zonal Office, in detail. Perused the relevant
provisions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Annexure A final report (pertaining to C.C.No.3/2014) was filed alleging
commission of scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (`PML Act' for short) and Annexure B is the complaint
filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the petitioner alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML
Act. According to the learned counsel, the allegations in Annexures A
and B are almost same and interconnected, and the witnesses to be
examined and documents to be marked are one and the same. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Special
Court, CBI-II, Ernakulam, is also a Special Court for the trial of cases
under the PC Act as well as the PML Act and hence transfer of Annexure
A final report pending before the Special Court CBI-I, Ernakulam, to the
2026:KER:8947
Special Court CBI-II, Ernakulam, where Annexure B complaint alleging
offences under the PML Act is pending, is necessary to protect the
interest of the accused, so that both the cases have to be tried by one
court.
4. Whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
CBI zealously opposed the transfer and he has highlighted Section 44(1)
(c) of the PML Act to contend that, in order to commit a case, for which
cognizance of the scheduled offence has been taken by the Court other
than the Special Court, which had taken cognizance of the offence of
money laundering under clause(b), it shall, on an application by the
authority authorised to file a complaint under the PML Act, commit the
case to the Special Court. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to
file a transfer petition seeking transfer of a case pertaining to a
scheduled offence to a court where a case involving the offences under
the PML Act is pending. It is also submitted by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor that, in fact, trial of the accused for the scheduled
offence and a finding regarding commission of the said offence is
absolutely necessary to go with the trial of the PML Act offences.
2026:KER:8947
Therefore, the question of joint trial or simultaneous trial doesn't arise
and on that count also, transfer sought for is liable to fail. It is also
pointed out that under Section 447 of BNSS also, the petitioner has no
right to come before this Court straight away seeking transfer, since it
has been specifically stipulated in the proviso to Section 447 of BNSS
that no application under Section 447 of BNSS would lie to the High
Court for transferring a case from one criminal court to another criminal
court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such
transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Enforcement Directorate would submit that, though as per Section 44(1)
(c) of the PML Act, the authority authorised to file a complaint is
competent to seek committal of a case relating to the scheduled offence
to the Special Court when cognizance of the scheduled offence was taken
by a Special Court, the same would not operate as an absolute bar for an
accused to file a petition under the provisions of BNSS seeking transfer
for valid grounds.
2026:KER:8947
6. In this connection, it is necessary to refer Section 44 of
the PML Act and Section 447 of BNSS, which are extracted hereunder:
"Section 44 of PML Act: Offences triable by Special Courts.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
[(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled
offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by
the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been
committed:
Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence
before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such
scheduled offence; or];
(b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an
authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take [cognizance of
offence under section 3, without the accused being committed to it for
trial];
[Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no offence
of moneylaundering is made out requiring filing of such complaint, the
said authority shall submit a closure report before the Special Court;
or]
[(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the
scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken
cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering
under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority
authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case
2026:KER:8947
relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special
Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the
stage at which it is committed;
(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the
offence of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), as it
applies to a trial before a Court of Session.]
[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,--
(i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with
the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under
this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of
the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same
court shall not be construed as joint trial;
(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent
complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to
bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused
person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has
already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.]
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to
affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under
section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and
the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under
clause (b) of sub-section(1) of that section as if the reference to
"Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a Special
Court designated under section 43."
2026:KER:8947
"Section 447 of BNSS: Power of High Court to transfer
cases and appeals - (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High
Court---
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in
any Criminal Court subordinate thereto; or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to
arise; or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any
provision of this Sanhita, or will tend to the general convenience of
the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,
it may order---
(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified
under sections 197 to 205 (both inclusive), but in other respects
competent to inquire into or try such offence;
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be
transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any
other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of
Session; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried
before itself.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or
on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative:
Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for
transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal
Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such
transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him."
2026:KER:8947
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI placed
a decision of the Orissa High Court in Cuttack in Crl.M.C.No.1207 of
2022 reported in [MANU/OR/0436/2023 : 2023(I)ILR-CUT1099],
Pankajini Sahu and Ors. Vs. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate,
GOI and Ors., where the learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court
considered quashment of notices while dealing with the application
under Section 44 of the PML Act. In the said case, in paragraph 12, the
Orissa High Court held as under:
"In the case at hand, the authority under the PMLA
has not moved the learned Special court at Bolangir for
committal of the case in respect of the scheduled offence to the
PMLA court at Bhubaneswar and therefore, it has been
challenged by the petitioners since the PMLA court on
receiving complaint has already summoned them. After having
a detailed discussion as above, the conclusion is that if an
application is moved by the competent authority under the
PMLA after exercising its discretion for committal of a case in
view of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA only in appropriate cases
and in the interest of justice, in and under such circumstances,
the Special court shall have to examine it and take a decision
for committal of the case to the designated court under the
PMLA and not otherwise. Since no such discretion has been
2026:KER:8947
exercised by the PMLA authority in so far as the present case
is concerned and for the fact that the scheme as a whole and
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA does not make it mandatory for
committal of a case of the scheduled offences to the PMLA
court, the petitioners as a matter of right cannot demand such
committal of the case from the file of learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Bolangir to the PMLA court at Bhubaneswar.
However, in the humble view of the Court, the PMLA authority
should examine the plea of the petitioners applying its
discretion and in the event found to be a fit case for committal
may move the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir for a
judicious decision in terms of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA."
8. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer
Section 65 of the PML Act which stipulates that the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (`Cr.P.C' for short) shall
apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation investigation,
prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act. Therefore, insofar
as the provisions which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the
PML Act are concerned, provisions of the Cr.P.C or BNSS (as the case
may be) would apply in relation to cases under the PML Act as well. On
a perusal of Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act, it is evident that the same
2026:KER:8947
is an enabling provision inasmuch as the authority who filed complaint
under the PML Act to request for committal of a case where cognizance
for the schedule offences under the PML Act was taken by a court other
than the PML Act court, so as to get committal of the case involving
scheduled offence also to the PML Act court.
9. It is not in dispute that joint trial of a case involving
scheduled offence and PML Act offences is an outright impossibility.
That is to say, only after finding the accused guilty for the scheduled
offence/offences, on conclusion of trial, the trial of an accused, who
involved in the PML Act offence is possible. Be it so, in view of
Section 44(1)(c) of PML Act, the authority who filed complaint under
the PML Act may seek committal of a case, for which cognizance was
taken for the scheduled offence by a Special Court other than the PML
Act court. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI
vehemently canvassed that in view of Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act,
the provisions of BNSS could not be invoked by an accused seeking
transfer of a case pending, where the cognizance for the scheduled
offences was taken by another Special Court. In fact, even though
2026:KER:8947
Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act provides so, that doesn't exclude the
right of any other aggrieved persons to file a transfer petition by
invoking the relevant provisions of BNSS, as pointed out by the learned
Standing Counsel for the E.D. Therefore, this Court is of the view that,
for valid reasons, the person other than the authority who filed a
complaint under the PML Act also can seek transfer of a case involving
scheduled offences, to the PML Act court, when the court where the
complaint alleging commission of PML Act offence is pending also is
notified under the PC Act as well as under the PML Act.
10. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the CBI that, the petitioner, who is the accused in
both cases, has no right to file a transfer petition by invoking the
provisions of BNSS, could not be accepted.
11. Another contention raised by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI is that no application would lie to the High
Court for transferring a case from one criminal court to another court in
the same Sessions division unless an application for such transfer has
been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him and this argument
2026:KER:8947
has been mooted with the aid of proviso to Section 447(2) of BNSS. In
fact, the power under Section 447 of BNSS is pari materia to the power
provided under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. Pari materia proviso is
available in Section 407 of Cr.P.C as well.
12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a decision
reported in [2005 (4) KLT 475], Surendra Kumar v. Vijayan, where a
Division Bench of this Court while overruling the decision reported in
[1981 CriLJ 1352 : 1981 KLT 557 : 1981 KLT SN 96], State of Kerala
v. Reny George and Ors. held that an interested litigant is entitled to
invoke Section 409 of the Code before the Sessions Judge for the
purpose of withdrawing or recalling cases including revisions and
appeals already made over to an Additional Sessions Judge, provided
the trial or hearing of the cases or revisions or appeals as the case may
be, has not commenced. It is an administrative exercise of power by the
Sessions Judge. (2) An interested litigant is entitled to move the
Sessions Judge for transferring cases including revisions and appeals at
any stage from the court of an Additional Sessions Judge, if such
transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. (3) Unless the litigant thus
2026:KER:8947
first moves the Sessions Judge, an application for transfer under Section
407 before the High Court is not maintainable. (4) The Additional
Sessions Judge concerned is entitled to make a report to the Sessions
Judge for transferring any cases including revisions and appeals
pending before him irrespective of the stage of such matters. Thus the
legal position is not in dispute that an interested litigant is entitled to
move for transferring a case from one criminal court to another criminal
court in the same Sessions division, before the Sessions Court. But in
terms of the proviso to Section 447 of BNSS, no application shall lie to
the High Court for transferring a case from one criminal court to
another criminal court in the same Sessions division unless an
application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and
rejected by the Sessions Judge. In this context, it is necessary to
consider the status of a Special Court created by a Statute. As far as the
Special Court under the PML Act is concerned, the same is the creation
of Section 43 of the PML Act and same is at the helm of the Central
Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Similarly, the Special Court constituted under Section 4 of the PC Act
2026:KER:8947
also is the creation of the statute and the power to appoint a Special
Judge under the PC Act is vested in the State Government or the Central
Government for a particular area, in terms of Section 3 of the PC Act. If
so, it is not safe to say that, when a person wants to transfer a case
pending before the Special Court under the PC Act to the Special Court
under the PML Act, before approaching the High Court under Section
447 of BNSS the said person shall approach the Sessions Court first and
get a rejection order there from, since Special Courts created by special
statute exercising exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the offences under
the special statute could not be roped into within the ambit of proviso to
Section 447 of BNSS. In such view of the matter, a party who wants to
transfer a case from one Special Court to another Special Court can
directly approach the High Court without approaching a Sessions Court,
and such a course of action is legally permissible in terms of Section 447
of BNSS. Therefore, this contention raised by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI is not acceptable.
13. Coming to the transfer sought for, as already observed,
even though Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act empowers the authority,
2026:KER:8947
who filed the complaint under PML Act, to request committal of the
case relating to scheduled offence, where cognizance was taken by a
court other than the PMLAct court for the scheduled offence, that by
itself doesn't take away the right of the litigant to invoke the power
vested in the High Court under Section 447 of BNSS in an appropriate
case and there is no bar for the High Court to consider the transfer in the
interest of justice, provided that, the court where from the case
pertaining to the scheduled offence is sought to be transferred also
should be a court duly notified to try offences under the PC Act.
14. In the instant case, the transfer sought is from a CBI
court to another CBI court and both the courts are Special Courts
notified under the PC Act as well as under the PML Act. Therefore,
there is no harm in permitting trial of both the cases by the same Judge.
Thus in the interest of justice, such a prayer is liable to be allowed.
15. In the result, this Transfer Petition stands allowed.
Accordingly, C.C.No.3/2014 pending before the Special CBI Court-I,
Ernakulam, is transferred to Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam, where
S.C.No.329/2017, has been pending and to consider both the cases by
2026:KER:8947
the same Judge, in accordance with law. The Special CBI Court-I,
Ernakulam, is directed to transfer the entire case records in
C.C.No.3/2014 to the Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam, forthwith.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Special Courts concerned for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
2026:KER:8947
APPENDIX OF TR.P(CRL.) NO. 3 OF 2026
PETITIONER's ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 3
OF 2014 DATED 09-06-2014.
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN S.C. NO.329 OF
2017.
