Satish Kumar Sharma vs Union of India and others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Actâ€​) reads as under:

“44. Offences triable by Special Courts.â€"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),â€

(a) ………

(b) ………

(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 authorized to file a complaint under this Act, commit

the case 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.â€​

The aforesaid section contemplates that where a Court takes cognizance of the scheduled offences under the Act, it shall, on an application, by the

authority authorized to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and on the receipt of

such case, the Special Court will proceed to deal with the matter.

This scope of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act is an application, which is contemplated to be filed by an Authority. In the

instant case, the present applicant has questioned the impugned order dated 02.06.2018 by virtue of which application paper no. 800 B under Section

44(1)(c) of the Act, which has been preferred by the I.O./Enforcement Officer, Directorate of Enforcement, Sub Zonal Office, Dehradun, has been

dismissed. It is this application, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

As far as the grievance agitated by the present applicant, against the order dated 02.06.2018, is concerned, this Court is of the view that the present

application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the behest of the present applicant would not be tenable because if at all any person could be said to be

aggrieved by the impugned order, it could be the applicant of the application under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002

and not the present applicant.

Consequently, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.