Lack of jurisdiction of court no ground to transfer PMLA complaint: Supreme Court rejects PFI member plea to transfer case from UP to Kochi

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA), cannot be a ground to order transfer of the case to another State [KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and Others]..A division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal dismissed a transfer petition moved by the General Secretary of Campus Front of India (CFI), which is now banned as an unlawful association, seeking transfer of a case of a money laundering from the special PMLA court in Lucknow to the special PMLA court at Ernakulam in Kerala."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," the Court held..The petitioner moved the apex court contending that the proceedings pending before the Special Court, Lucknow are without jurisdiction, as all criminal activities alleged by the prosecution admittedly took place in Kerala. It was also pointed out that seven out of the ten accused persons are residents of Kerala.It was further highlighted that twelve out of seventeen witnesses in the prosecution complaint dated February 6, 2021 and nine out of fourteen witnesses cited in the supplementary complaint dated May 6, 2022 and five of the nine witnesses in the combined prosecution complaint dated November 18, 2022 are from Kerala or South India.Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner was lawfully remanded to custody by special judge, Ernakulam under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and hence the filing of the prosecution complaint at Lucknow is impermissible..The ED, on the other hand, argued that the question of territorial jurisdiction is already settled by the decision in Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director (2023), and that petition for transfer, filed after the commencement of examination-in-chief of first prosecution witness and after the dismissal of the discharge application of one of the co-accused, is an abuse of the process of law..The Supreme Court considered the decision in Rana Ayyub and stated that irrespective of where the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the scheduled offence was filed and irrespective of which court took cognizance of the scheduled offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a special court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 PMLA took place..Hence, the Court held that it would be incorrect to say that the Special PMLA Court at Lucknow lacks jurisdiction in the instant case..On the aspect of majority of accused persons and witnesses being residents of Kerala or south India, the Court said that this can hardly be a ground for ordering the transfer of investigation..The argument of the petitioner that he was remanded to custody under Section 167(2) CrPC by the special judge at Ernakulam and, therefore, the special judge at Lucknow has no jurisdiction, the Court said that the said argument is not legally founded.In this regard, the Court highlighted the timeline of events, where the petitioner was arrested in Kerala and, hence, he was produced before the Magistrate in Kerala, who remanded him to judicial custody. Thereafter, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) moved an application under Section 167 CrPC before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for the grant of ED custody.Therefore, while emphasising that an order under Section 167(2) CrPC had to be passed necessarily by the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded, the Court was of the view that there is no legally valid and justifiable grounds to order transfer of complaint..Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu appeared for the petitioner.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]