2023 (4) TMI 412 - SC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking transfer of Sessions Case from the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow to the Court of the Special Judge, PMLA at Ernakulam, Kerala - unlawful association - Sections 43 and 44 of PMLA - HELD THAT - The Special Court, PMLA, Lucknow cannot be said to be lacking in territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In any case, the lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer. A congenital defect of lack of jurisdiction, assuming that it exists, inures to the benefit of the accused and hence it need not be cured at the instance of the accused to his detriment. Therefore, the first ground on which transfer is sought, is liable to be rejected. The second ground on which transfer is sought is that 7 out of 10 accused persons are residents of Kerala. But this can hardly be a ground for ordering the transfer of investigation. Similarly, the third ground that a majority of witnesses are also from Kerala/ South India is also no ground to order the transfer of the complaint - 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. The petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2020 in Kerala and, hence, he was produced before the Magistrate on 13.12.2020, who remanded him to judicial custody till 24.12.2020. Therefore, the NIA moved an application under Section 167 of the Code before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for the grant of Enforcement Directorate custody for a period of 14 days. An order under Section 167(2) of the Code had to be passed necessarily by the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded . In fact, Section 167(2) contains the words whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case . Therefore, the argument revolving around Section 167(2) of the Code also fails. This transfer petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition for transfer of criminal case from one Special Judge to another based on jurisdictional grounds.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Special Court
- The petitioner sought transfer of the case from Lucknow to Ernakulam citing that all criminal activities took place in Kerala.
- Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is determined by the location of the offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, regardless of where the FIR was filed.
- The court found that the activities mentioned in the prosecution complaint linked to the offense occurred in Uttar Pradesh, establishing the jurisdiction of the Special Court in Lucknow.

Issue 2: Residence of Accused and Witnesses
- The petitioner argued that most accused and witnesses were from Kerala, justifying the transfer.
- The court held that the residence of accused or witnesses alone is not sufficient grounds for transferring the case.

Issue 3: Custody and Filing of Complaint
- The petitioner contended that being remanded in custody in Kerala, the complaint filed in Lucknow was impermissible.
- The court clarified that the remand order was passed by the Magistrate in Kerala, and the subsequent custody application was made in accordance with the law, thus rejecting this argument.

Conclusion:
- The court dismissed the transfer petition, finding no valid grounds for the transfer based on jurisdiction, residence of parties, or custody location.
- The court emphasized that lack of jurisdiction benefits the accused and need not be rectified to their detriment.
- All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.