The Kerala High Court has held that an accused is not barred from seeking transfer of a predicate offence case to a Special Court dealing with offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even though Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA specifically empowers the Enforcement Directorate to seek such committal.
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the ruling while allowing a transfer petition filed by Sabu K.S, an accused facing proceedings both under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the PMLA.
The Court directed that the corruption case pending before Special CBI Court-I, Ernakulam be transferred to Special CBI Court-II, where the connected money laundering case is pending, so that both matters can be considered by the same judge.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sabu K.S, is facing trial in a corruption case registered as C.C. No. 3 of 2014 and also in a connected PMLA prosecution arising out of the same allegations. He approached the High Court seeking transfer of the corruption case to the court handling the PMLA matter.
The petitioner argued that the allegations in both prosecutions were interconnected and involved common witnesses and documentary evidence. It was also pointed out that both courts were notified Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the PMLA.
What Happened During the Hearing
The Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the plea, contending that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA only permits the authorised agency to seek committal of a scheduled offence case to the PMLA court. The prosecution also argued that the accused could not directly invoke the High Court’s transfer powers under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Directorate of Enforcement, however, submitted that the PMLA provision did not completely bar an accused from invoking transfer powers available under the BNSS for valid reasons.
Court’s Key Observation
The Kerala High Court clarified that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is only an enabling provision empowering the ED to seek committal of connected cases and does not extinguish the rights of other litigants to seek transfer in appropriate circumstances.
“The Court observed that there was no legal bar preventing the High Court from ordering such a transfer in the interest of justice.”
Justice Badharudeen further held that parties seeking transfer between two Special Courts constituted under special statutes can directly approach the High Court without first moving the Sessions Court.
The Court also reiterated that trials for scheduled offences and PMLA offences are not joint trials, though both can be handled by the same judge.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the petition, the Kerala High Court transferred C.C. No. 3 of 2014 from Special CBI Court-I, Ernakulam to Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam, where the connected PMLA case is pending.
The Court directed the Special CBI Court-I, Ernakulam, to transfer the entire case records to the Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam, forthwith.
Case Details
Case Title: Sabu K.S v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Case Number: TR.P.(Crl.) No. 3 of 2026
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Date: February 2, 2026
