Offences triable by Special Courts
Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 deals with offences triable by Special Courts. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-- [(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been comm The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2005.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--
1[(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed:
Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or];
(b) a Special Court may, 2*** upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take 3[cognizance of offence under section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial];
4[(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money-laundering under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.
(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the offence of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974) as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session.]
5[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,--
(i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial;
(ii) the complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation that may be conducted to bring any further evidence, oral or documentary, against any accused person involved in respect of the offence, for which complaint has already been filed, whether named in the original complaint or not.]
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a Special Court designated under section 43.
Section 44, The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (Act 15 of 2003).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail (that Public Prosecutor be given opportunity to oppose and that Court be satisfied of reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail), is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India because: (1) the classification based on sentencing of predicate offences has no rational nexus to the object of the PMLA Act which is to attach proceeds of crime and bring money laundering offenders to book; (2) the twin conditions relate to guilt of predicate offence, not money laundering offence, creating a disconnect; (3) the provision produces manifestly arbitrary results depending on whether predicate offence is in Part A or Part B of Schedule or whether person is charged with money laundering alone; (4) the provision inverts the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to criminal law; (5) the procedure is not fair, just and reasonable as required by Article 21; and (6) the provision lacks a compelling state interest justifying such drastic inroads into personal liberty.
On this section: Provides that scheduled offences and money laundering offences shall be tried together by Special Court
-
Ram Kishor Arora vs Directorate of Enforcement
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an authorized officer under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, arrests a person and informs him orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest, and subsequently furnishes a written communication about the grounds of arrest within twenty-four hours (as soon as may be), such action constitutes sufficient compliance with both Section 19(1) of PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The requirement to furnish a written copy of grounds of arrest as a matter of course and without exception, as mandated in Pankaj Bansal judgment, applies prospectively from the date of that judgment (henceforth) and not retrospectively to arrests made before that date. A three-judge bench decision on a point of law is binding on a two-judge bench, and any two-judge bench decision that deviates from a three-judge bench decision on the same point falls in the category of per incuriam.
On this section: Filing of complaint before Special Court for offence of money-laundering
-
Md Intekhab Alam v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Court relied on Explanation to s.44 clarifying that Special Court jurisdiction in PMLA and scheduled-offence proceedings are independent tracks; predicate quash for partner does not automatically erase Special Court PMLA track for the firm under the Act's bifurcated scheme.
On this section: s.44 Offences triable by Special Courts — Explanation treated as bifurcating scheduled-offence and PMLA Special Court proceedings as independent
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 44
What have the courts held on Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act?
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue (23 Nov 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides that scheduled offences and money laundering offences shall be tried together by Special Court. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2017 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Pmla 44, section 44 Pmla, section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. People searching for it also type pmla 44 45 and pmla 44 1 c. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India Ministry of Finance through Secretary Revenue (23 Nov 2017).
What should I read with Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Offence of money-laundering), section 4 (Punishment for money-laundering), section 43 (Special Courts), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act come into force?
Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, cited as Pmla 44, came into force on 01 Jul 2005, having been enacted on 17 Jan 2003. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1773 words
- 8. Adjudication975 words
- 6. Adjudicating Authorities, composition, powers, etc781 words
- 73. Power to make rules704 words
- 17. Search and seizure570 words
- 5. Attachment of property involved in money-laundering570 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.