The Madras High Court dismissed a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to transfer the trial in the disproportionate asset case against former Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan to the Special Court for PMLA cases in Madurai. This decision clarifies the application of Section 44 of the PMLA, particularly in cases where the Special Court has not taken cognisance of the offence. The ED's ability to consolidate cases is affected, with the most significant practical consequence being the potential delay in the conclusion of the trial.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute was triggered by the ED's application to transfer the trial in the disproportionate asset case to the Special Court in Madurai, where a money laundering complaint was filed. The core disagreement was over the interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and whether the ED could seek transfer of the case before the Special Court took cognisance.

• Case Name: The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others

• Court: Madras High Court

• Bench: Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan

• Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

• Statutes Cited: Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

• Key Provisions: Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA

• Primary Legal Issue: Interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA regarding the transfer of trials

• Petitioner Arguments: The ED argued that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA does not impose a pre-condition requiring cognisance by the Special Court

• Respondent Arguments: Anitha and other accused argued that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA applies only where the Special Court has taken cognisance of the offence

• Court Reasoning: The court noted that the trial in the predicate offence had almost reached the final stage and transferring the trial at such a stage would serve no legitimate purpose

• Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA exists to save time and avoid the risk of two courts reaching different conclusions on the same facts

• Operative Order: The court directed the Thoothukudi Court to complete the trial at the earliest

• Practical Outcome: The ED's plea was dismissed, and the trial will continue in the Thoothukudi Court

How Does This Affect You?

The court's decision clarifies that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA applies only when the Special Court has taken cognisance of the offence. This creates a compliance obligation for the ED to seek transfer of a case only after the Special Court has taken cognisance. The ED's ability to consolidate cases under the PMLA is restricted by the requirement for the Special Court to have taken cognisance before transfer can be sought.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• The ED can no longer seek transfer of a case to a Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA before the court has taken cognisance, which affects the strategy for consolidating cases.

• Lawyers may wish to review pending client matters to assess the impact of this ruling on their cases, particularly those involving the PMLA.

• The ruling affects the drafting of applications for transfer, as it clarifies the pre-conditions for such applications under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA.

• Practitioners may want to consider the implications of this ruling on their legal arguments, particularly in relation to the interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA.

For Law Students

The decision provides an opportunity to examine the interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA regarding the transfer of trials.

• The core legal doctrine or distinction is the interpretation of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA.

• The decision is relevant for the study of:

  • The principles of transfer of cases

  • The role of the Special Court in PMLA cases

  • The application of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA

• Comparable cases to study alongside this judgment include Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India (2020) and B.R. Sharma v The State of Karnataka (2019), as they deal with the interpretation of the PMLA and the powers of the Special Court.

For Businesses

• Companies involved in transactions that may be subject to the PMLA may want to consider the potential implications of this ruling on their compliance procedures.

• Businesses may find it useful to review their internal documentation or filing processes in light of this ruling, particularly in relation to the PMLA and the transfer of cases.

• The board or CFO of a company may want to assess the potential implications of this ruling on their approach to transactions that may be subject to the PMLA.

Key Takeaways

• The legal principle established: Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA applies only when the Special Court has taken cognisance of the offence, limiting the ED's ability to seek transfer of cases.

• The practice consequence: Lawyers may wish to advise clients on the implications of this ruling for pending cases and future strategies under the PMLA.

• The enforcement consequence: The ED's ability to consolidate cases under the PMLA is restricted by the requirement for the Special Court to have taken cognisance before transfer can be sought.

• What to watch next: The outcome of pending cases where the ED has sought transfer under the PMLA, and potential amendments to the PMLA that may address the issues raised by this ruling.

• In-house counsel for companies subject to the PMLA may want to review their compliance procedures and legal strategies in light of this ruling.

Source: Madras High Court Rejects ED's Plea To Transfer Former Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan's Disproportionate Assets Trial To PMLA Court