2026 INSC 702
Amit Katyal v. Union of India & Anr.
HEAD NOTES
A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 43, 44 & 46 — Territorial Jurisdiction — Special Court — Place of trial.
(Paras 7 to 11)
Held, an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act comprises one or more processes connected with the "proceeds of crime", including its derivation, acquisition, possession, concealment, use or projection as untainted property. Consequently, prosecution under Section 4 of the Act may be instituted before any Special Court within whose territorial jurisdiction any part of such process or activity has taken place.
B. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 43 & 44 — Transfer of PMLA proceedings — Scheduled offence transferred to another State — Effect.
(Paras 10 & 11)
Held, where the scheduled offence has been transferred to another jurisdiction and part of the offence of money laundering, including concealment or attachment of the proceeds of crime, has also occurred within that jurisdiction, transfer of the connected PMLA proceedings to the same Special Court is justified to give effect to Section 44(1) of the Act and to secure the ends of justice.
C. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Ss. 43, 44 & 46 — Simultaneous territorial jurisdiction — More than one Special Court.
(Paras 8 to 11)
Held, where different components of the offence of money laundering are committed in different local areas, simultaneous territorial jurisdiction may vest in more than one Special Court. The Special Court having jurisdiction over any part of the offence is competent to try the prosecution.
D. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.178(d) — Offence consisting of several acts committed in different local areas — Application to PMLA proceedings.
(Para 8)
Held, by virtue of Sections 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where an offence consists of several acts committed in different local areas, the Court having jurisdiction over any of those areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence, unless excluded by the special statute.
E. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Transfer of proceedings — Convenience not sole consideration — Ends of justice.
(Paras 10 & 11)
Held, transfer of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not governed merely by the convenience of the accused or witnesses. Where statutory requirements, territorial jurisdiction and the need for joint trial of the scheduled offence and the money laundering offence justify transfer, the Court may direct transfer in the interests of justice.
F. Precedents — Applicability — Ratio decidendi — Facts of each case.
(Para 10)
Held, the ratio of a judicial precedent cannot be applied as a rigid formula divorced from the facts of the case. A decision rendered on materially different facts does not govern a case involving distinct statutory and factual considerations.
Analysis of Facts
The petitioner, a promoter of a real estate company developing the "Krrish World" project at Gurugram, sought quashing of the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). During the hearing, however, the relief was confined to transfer of the PMLA proceedings from the Special Court at Gurugram to the Special Court under the PMLA at Delhi.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the transfer, contending that the proceeds of crime originated from fraudulent diversion of approximately ₹503 crores collected from homebuyers in Gurugram and that substantial immovable properties constituting proceeds of crime had been attached there.
The petitioner relied upon the fact that the principal scheduled offence (FIR No. 439 of 2024) had already been transferred by the Supreme Court from Gurugram to Delhi and argued that the connected PMLA proceedings should also be tried at Delhi.
The Supreme Court found that while substantial parts of the proceeds of crime originated at Gurugram, part of the money laundering activity, including concealment and attachment of assets, had also taken place at Delhi, thereby conferring concurrent territorial jurisdiction on both Special Courts.
Analysis of Law
The Court interpreted Sections 43, 44 and 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in conjunction with Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and reiterated the following principles:
The offence of money laundering is a continuing offence comprising several processes connected with the proceeds of crime.
Territorial jurisdiction under the PMLA extends to every place where any constituent activity relating to the proceeds of crime has occurred.
Multiple Special Courts may simultaneously possess territorial jurisdiction where different components of the offence occur in different places.
Section 44(1) of the PMLA contemplates that the offence of money laundering and the connected scheduled offence should ordinarily be tried by the same Special Court.
Transfer of proceedings may be ordered where necessary to achieve the statutory object of coordinated trial and to secure the ends of justice.
Judicial precedents on transfer petitions must be applied with reference to their own facts and cannot be mechanically extended to materially different situations.
Ratio Decidendi
Where constituent acts of the offence of money laundering occur in different territorial jurisdictions, each jurisdiction acquires concurrent competence to try the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. If the connected scheduled offence has been transferred to another competent jurisdiction and part of the money laundering activity has also occurred there, the connected PMLA proceedings may be transferred to the same Special Court to give effect to Section 44(1) of the Act and to secure the ends of justice.
