#Special Court

The Madras High Court ruled that a Directorate of Enforcement committal petition under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is invalid if filed before the Special Court has taken cognizance and the requisite sanction is produced. This bars premature transfers of DA cases to Special Courts, affecting enforcement agencies and the accused.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Special Courts under the SEBI Act cannot take cognizance of offences without first affording the accused an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS 2023. This sets a critical procedural safeguard for financial defendants, ensuring fair trial rights are not bypassed even in regulatory prosecutions.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that Special Courts under the SC/ST Act cannot reject anticipatory bail without explicitly examining whether a prima facie case of atrocity exists. This mandates a substantive threshold for bail denial, protecting accused persons from arbitrary detention where allegations lack foundational evidence - a vital safeguard for procedural fairness in caste-based criminal proceedings.

Bombay High Court rules that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) prevails over the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act, denying secured creditors priority over attached proceeds of crime. Creditors must approach the Special Court under Section 8(8) of PMLA for relief, reinforcing the Act's overriding confiscatory regime.

Madras High Court rules that property restoration under PMLA Section 8(8) is conditional on charge framing under Section 4 and exhaustion of appellate remedies. The court held that restoration during pending adjudication violates procedural fairness, impacting accused and financial institutions in money laundering cases.

The Madras High Court has mandated that when a Special Court is designated under both the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, money laundering cases must be tried alongside the predicate offence to ensure judicial efficiency and avoid evidentiary fragmentation. This ruling reinforces the procedural requirement under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, impacting parallel prosecutions involving scheduled offences and money laundering charges.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act mandates trial by Special Court irrespective of contraband quantity, overriding Magistrate jurisdiction.