Page 166 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

212 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

dering Act, Special Court is a Court of session and as such, it has to follow the
procedure as applicable to the trial before the sessions court. It was pointed out
that, the Sessions Court designated under the Money Laundering Act is not a
notified court under Section 3 of the PC Act, and consequently it cannot conduct
trial of an offence under the PC Act. Hence, it was contended that, even if a
scheduled offence investigated by the CBI and pending before the Special Court
under the PC Act is committed under Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering
Act, that Court being an incompetent court and not a Court notified under Sec-
tion 3 of the PC Act cannot try the offence. It was pointed out by the Learned
Special Prosecutor that, a complaint is filed under the Money Laundering Act by
the competent authority under the Act. On the other hand, final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C is filed by the CBI officer conducting investigation into the
offences under the PC Act and cognizance is taken without any committal pro-
ceedings, in the light of Section 5 of the PC Act.
7. Another contention advanced by the Learned Special Prosecutor was
that, Sections 44 and 71 of the Money Laundering Act do not indicate that the Act
overrides the PC Act. Hence, the special court under Section 43 of the Money
Laundering Act, is not competent to try the offences under the PC Act, as the
trial of a case involving an offence under the PC Act can be conducted only by a
Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the PC Act. Learned Counsel con-
tended that the present case cannot be clubbed with the complaint under the
Money Laundering Act. The trial of the scheduled offence under the PC Act has
to be completed before the Special Judge and that under the Money Laundering
Act before the principal sessions court, simultaneously. It was contended by the
Learned Counsel that, Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act does not
oblige the authority under the Money Laundering Act, to seek for committal of
the scheduled offence pending before the other court, if that was likely to embar-
rass the trial of either of the proceedings or if the Special court constituted under
the Money Laundering Act was incompetent to try the offences pending before
the other Court. It was contended by the Learned Prosecutor that, incongruous
situations may arise wherein, committal of scheduled offence investigated by the
CBI or other agencies are sought to be committed for the trial along with pro-
ceeding pending before the special court under the Money Laundering Act.
Learned Counsel further pointed out that, in the additional objections filed be-
fore the trial court, it was contended that, under section 4(1) of the PC Act of-
fence shall be tried by the Special Judge only. Section 3 empowers the Govern-
ment to appoint the Special Judge under the Act by notification. The Principal
Sessions Judge under the Money Laundering Act, constituted in this case, was
not a Special Judge under Section 3 of the PC Act. There was no impediment in
continuing of trial under the PC Act by the Special Court under the Act, and
holding of the trial under the Money Laundering Act, by the Principal Sessions
Court, Ernakulam will not offend Section 220 of Cr. P.C.
8. Essentially, the question that arises in the present case is the scope of
Section 44(1)(c) of the Money Laundering Act, read along with Section 71 of that
Act. Evidently, the case involved in C.C. No. 3 of 2014 is a scheduled offence un-
der the Money Laundering Act.
Section 44(1) of the Money Laundering Act, reads as follows :
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  182