Special Courts Constituted Under PML Act Can Adjudicate Scheduled Offences, Confirms Kerala High Court
In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court on July 1, 2026, delivered a crucial judgment affirming the jurisdiction of Special Courts constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act), to try scheduled offences. This ruling came in the case of "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement," where the court dismissed the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thereby upholding the legality of the jurisdictional powers of Special Courts under the PML Act.
The petitioner, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor Shri. Sreelal N. Warrier, argued against an earlier order dated July 28, 2025, which committed a case pending before the Special Court (CBI)-II, Ernakulam, to the Special Court under the PML Act cases, Kozhikode. The CBI contended that both the cases should be tried by the Special Court (CBI)-II, Ernakulam, which is designated for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as the PML Act.
The main legal contention revolved around the interpretation of Sections 44(1)(a), 44(1)(c), and 71 of the PML Act. The court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, examined whether the Special Court under the PML Act holds jurisdiction to try scheduled offences when the same is not a notified court for such trials. The respondents, including the Directorate of Enforcement and others, supported the view that the Special Court under the PML Act could indeed adjudicate scheduled offences.
The learned counsel for the 15th respondent cited precedents from various High Courts, including a Delhi High Court ruling, to argue that the Special Court under the PML Act has jurisdiction over scheduled offences. Conversely, the CBI referenced a contrary position from the Orissa High Court. However, the Kerala High Court found merit in the respondents' arguments, pointing out that Section 44(1)(c) allows such jurisdiction and that Section 71 ensures the PML Act's provisions override inconsistent laws.
Justice A. Badharudeen concluded that the Special Court under the PML Act is legally empowered to try scheduled offences, even if it is not a designated court for such offences. Therefore, the court upheld the impugned order, dismissing the CBI's petition and directing the Special Court in Kozhikode to proceed with the trial.
This judgment underscores the Kerala High Court's stance on the expansive jurisdictional competence of Special Courts under the PML Act, reinforcing the Act's provisions and clarifying procedural intricacies regarding the trial of scheduled offences.
Bottom line:-
A Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act) is legally competent and has jurisdiction to try scheduled offences committed to it under Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act, even if it is not a notified court for trying such scheduled offences.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 44(1)(a), 44(1)(c), and 71
