TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te complaint before the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, which is constituted for trying the cases contemplated under the Act, 2002 and same has also been taken cognizance by the the Special Court for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the second respondent has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Court constituted for the said Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, alone is competent to try the cases. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for allowing the petitions. Merely because private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before the Special Court with regard to Money laundering, it cannot be stated that the cases investigated by the CBI with regard to the aforesaid crime also have to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2002. If such view has been taken by this Court, there will be unwarranted delay in entire criminal prosecution launched by the CBI before the concerned Court. The object of constituting a Special Court is only to speed up the trial with regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, namely, the Directorate of Enforcement, preferred a complaint under Section 45 (1) read with Section 3, 4 and 8 (5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (In short Act 2002 ) and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners/ accused in C.C.No.20 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 120 (B), read with 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 as well as Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners herein have filed the instant petitions seeking to transfer the proceedings pending against them on the file of XI Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Court for CBI Cases) to the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act). 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the records before the CBI Court would be required for the Special Court and a large part of the evidence would even be common. According to the petitioners, the Act, 2002 contemplates such trial together and also contemplates transfer of such proceedings to the Special Court under Section 44 of the Act, 2002. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Money Laundering Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, which is constituted for trying the cases contemplated under the Act, 2002 and same has also been taken cognizance by the the Special Court for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the second respondent has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Court constituted for the said Act, i.e. Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, alone is competent to try the cases. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for allowing the petitions. 9. No doubt, the Special Court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act, has been constituted for trying the offences contemplated under the said Act, 2002 along with schedule offences connected with that section. 10. Before further discussion, it would be useful to refer Section 44 of the Act, 2002, which reads as follows: 44. 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 office under that section shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed against the petitioners on the basis of the materials collected by the CBI for the serious bank fraud and also for confiscation of the properties, the petitioners cannot now contend that the offences investigated by the CBI with regard to the serious bank fraud committed by them also be tried by the Special Court constituted for trying the offences under the Act, 2002. In fact, the aforesaid private complaint was filed before the Special Court only in the year 2015. Whereas in the instant cases, investigation has been completed by the CBI even in the year 2013 itself. Further, the offences under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Section 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B of the IPC alone was charge sheeted against the petitioners and these offences are not scheduled in the Act, 2002. 13. Therefore, as discussed above, merely because private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before the Special Court with regard to Money laundering, it cannot be stated that the cases investigated by the CBI with regard to the aforesaid crime also have to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act, 2002. If such view has been taken by this Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
