Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from parallel proceedings against a former Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and former Minister, who was accused of accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, registered a First Information Report in 2006 alleging assets worth around Rs.2.68 crore in the names of the accused and his family members. Investigation culminated in a final report filed in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, with the disproportionate amount computed at about Rs.2.08 crore. That court was designated as a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for cases against MPs and MLAs. The High Court had directed expeditious trial closure by 15.12.2025. By then, the prosecution had examined 79 witnesses and marked 312 exhibits, while the defence had examined 6 witnesses and marked 74 exhibits; prosecution arguments were completed by 07.01.2026, and defence arguments were partly heard before the present stay. Separately, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) treated the alleged disproportionate assets as proceeds of crime and filed a prosecution complaint under Section 3, punishable under Section 4, of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) before the Special Court at Madurai, which was designated under Section 43(1) PMLA. That complaint was numbered A.No.122 of 2025. The Special Court at Madurai called for sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC, which was not produced, and issued a pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 BNSS, but had not taken cognizance. The ED then moved the Thoothukudi court under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA to commit the scheduled offence case to the Madurai Special Court. The application was returned multiple times and finally rejected by order dated 11.12.2025 on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and absence of prior cognizance. Aggrieved, the ED filed the present petition under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 482 CrPC. The High Court stayed further proceedings in the Thoothukudi trial. The petitioner argued that the legislative scheme intended one Special Court to try both the scheduled offence and money-laundering, citing Section 43(2) and Section 44(1)(a) PMLA, and relied on Supreme Court decisions in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Rana Ayyub to assert that prior cognizance is not a precondition. The respondents contended that the plain language of Section 44(1)(c) requires cognizance by the Special Court, and relied on Kushal Kumar Agarwal regarding BNSS compliance. The available text does not include the final holding of the High Court, as it ends while recording respondent arguments.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Transfer of Scheduled Offence Case - Section 44(1)(c), Section 43(2), Section 44(1)(a) - The petitioner sought transfer of pending PC Act disproportionate assets case from Thoothukudi to PMLA Special Court at Madurai under Section 44(1)(c), arguing legislative intent for one court to try both scheduled offence and money laundering; the respondent contended provision applies only after Special Court takes cognizance. The High Court was to decide whether prior cognizance is precondition (Paras 2.6-2.7, 4.1-4.6, 6.1-6.2).
B) Jurisdiction of Special Court - Designation under PMLA - Section 43(1), Section 49 PMLA - The Thoothukudi court was designated as Special Court only under PC Act for MPs/MLAs, not under PMLA; ED as authority under Section 49 PMLA may approach only PMLA Special Court; lower court held application without jurisdiction. Petitioner argued Section 43(2) obliges Special Court to try connected offence (Paras 2.7, 4.1-4.2).
C) Sanction and Cognizance - Section 197(1) CrPC, Section 223 BNSS - Special Court Madurai required sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC which was not produced; it issued pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 BNSS but had not taken cognizance; issue whether cognizance is prerequisite for transfer under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA (Paras 2.5, 6.1).
D) Procedural History and Stay - Stay of Trial - Section 528 BNSS, Section 482 CrPC - Pending petition, High Court stayed further proceedings in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 by order dated 15.04.2026; respondents filed application to vacate stay; petitioner opposed vacation (Paras 2.8, 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, erred in rejecting the application under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA seeking transfer of the scheduled offence case to the Special Court at Madurai; whether prior cognizance by the PMLA Special Court is a precondition for exercise of power under Section 44(1)(c); whether a court not designated as a PMLA Special Court can entertain such an application; interplay between Section 43 and Section 44 PMLA and Section 223 BNSS.
Law Points
- Section 44(1)(c) PMLA transfer of scheduled offence case
- prior cognizance not required under Section 44(1)(c) as per petitioner
- Section 43(2) PMLA special court shall try connected offence
- Section 44(1)(a) PMLA triable by special court for area
- Section 49 PMLA authority may approach only special court
- Section 197(1) CrPC sanction for former public servant
- Section 223 BNSS pre-cognizance notice
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (08) 30
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3792 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4074 and 11904 of 2026
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, G. Arul Murugan
P. Sidharthan, Arun Anbumani, M. Dinesh, Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, K.R. Ramesh Kumar, A. Nagarajan
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Chennai Zonal Office-II
1.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi; 2.Anitha Radhakrishnan; 3.R.Jeygandhi; 4.R.Anandha Mageshwaran; 5.R.Anandha Ramakrishnan; 6.Anandha Padmanabhan; 7.R.Shanmugananthan; 8.R.Sivananthan; 9.Siva Blue Metals, Rep. by Partners Ananda Mageshwaran and A.Valarmathi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal original petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 CrPC challenging an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, rejecting an application under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to transfer a scheduled offence case to the PMLA Special Court.
Remedy Sought
The Enforcement Directorate sought to set aside the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, and consequently to commit the pending disproportionate assets case in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 to the Special Court at Madurai for joint trial with the money-laundering complaint.
Filing Reason
The lower court rejected the transfer application mainly on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, non-designation as a PMLA Special Court, and absence of prior cognizance by the Special Court, which the petitioner considered erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, by order dated 11.12.2025, rejected the ED's application under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA. Earlier, the same court had dismissed an ED application under Sections 301(2) and 302(2) CrPC on 03.07.2024, which was not appealed.
Issues
Whether the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, erred in holding that the application under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA was without jurisdiction.
Whether prior cognizance by the PMLA Special Court is a precondition for seeking transfer of a scheduled offence case under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA.
Whether a court not designated as a Special Court under the PMLA can entertain an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA.
Whether the requirements of Section 223 BNSS regarding pre-cognizance notice affect the maintainability of the transfer application.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the legislative intent behind the PMLA amendments was to have one Special Court try both the scheduled offence and money-laundering, relying on Section 43(2) and Section 44(1)(a) PMLA, and the Standing Committee on Finance report.
Petitioner contended that Section 44(1)(c) PMLA does not impose prior cognizance by the Special Court as a precondition, citing paragraphs 27, 29 and 30 of Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement.
Petitioner relied on Ranjit Singh Kothari v. State of West Bengal and Deputy Director v. Deputy Superintendent of Police to assert that the scheme of the PMLA requires one court to avoid inconsistent findings and that transfer is mandatory once application is made.
First respondent stated it had no specific objection to transfer of the case to the Special Court at Madurai, though it was not served with notice of the original application.
Respondents 2 to 9 contended that Section 44(1)(c) PMLA applies only where the Special Court has 'taken cognizance' of the money-laundering complaint, and since only a pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 BNSS was issued, the provision was not attracted, relying on Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Enforcement Directorate.
Judgment Excerpts
The amount said to be disproportionate to the known sources of income works out to about Rs.2.08 crore.
What needs emphasis is that the Special Court at Madurai has, as on date, not taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint at all.
By order dated 11.12.2025, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, rejected the application.
Section 43(2) of the PMLA says a Special Court 'shall also try' any connected offence.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA applies, on its own wording, only where the Special Court has 'taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering'.
Procedural History
FIR registered by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi in 2006 against the second respondent for disproportionate assets. Final report filed in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. High Court by order dated 29.04.2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.304 of 2014 directed trial to be completed by 15.12.2025. ED filed prosecution complaint under PMLA e-filed on 28.03.2025 and hard copy on 03.04.2025 before Special Court at Madurai, numbered A.No.122 of 2025. Special Court at Madurai by memorandum dated 04.09.2025 called for sanction under Section 197(1) CrPC; sanction not produced. Special Court issued pre-cognizance notice dated 24.12.2025 under Section 223 BNSS. ED filed application under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA before Thoothukudi court; returned on 07.10.2025, 15.10.2025, 30.10.2025, re-presented 10.12.2025, and rejected by order dated 11.12.2025. ED filed present petition under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 482 CrPC. High Court by order dated 15.04.2026 stayed further proceedings in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019. Respondents filed application to vacate stay; ED filed counter opposing. Judgment reserved on 23.07.2026 and delivered on 04.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: 3, 4, 43(1), 43(2), 44(1)(a), 44(1)(c), 49
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 197(1), 301(2), 302(2), 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 223, 528
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
