Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer Ex-Minister Radhakrishnan Case To PMLA Court, Calls Plea Premature

On 4 August, the Madras High Court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition seeking transfer of the disproportionate assets case against former Tamil Nadu Minister and MLA Anitha R. Radhakrishnan from the Principal Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, to the Special PMLA Court at Madurai, holding that the application was premature.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that a scheduled offence case can be committed to a Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) only after the Special Court has taken cognizance of the connected money laundering complaint. It observed:

“ A bare reading of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA makes it clear as day that the clause is speaking of two courts, each of which has already taken cognizance — one of the scheduled offence, and the other, being the Special Court, of the money-laundering complaint. Only when both the courts have taken cognizance and they turn out to be different courts, does the mechanism of committal come into play.”

The petition arose from an order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, rejecting the ED's application under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, which permits transfer of a scheduled offence case to the Special Court trying the connected money laundering case when the two proceedings are pending before different courts.

The disproportionate assets case originated from a 2006 FIR registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption alleging that Radhakrishnan had acquired assets worth about Rs. 2.08 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure as Minister.

The trial before the Thoothukudi Court had reached an advanced stage when the ED sought transfer. Seventy-nine prosecution witnesses had already been examined, evidence from both sides had been completed and final arguments had substantially concluded.

Meanwhile, treating the alleged disproportionate assets as proceeds of crime, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report and filed a money laundering complaint before the Special PMLA Court at Madurai. However, the Special Court had not taken cognizance of the complaint and had only issued a pre-cognizance notice.

The ED argued that the PMLA requires the scheduled offence and money laundering offence to be tried together before the same Special Court and contended that prior cognizance of the money laundering complaint by the Special Court was not a requirement for seeking transfer under Section 44(1)(c).

The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the application was premature since the Special PMLA Court had not taken cognizance of the money laundering complaint. They further contended that transferring the case at such an advanced stage would affect the accused's right to a speedy trial.

Rejecting the ED's plea, the Court held that Section 44(1)(c) requires two courts to have already taken cognizance, one of the scheduled offence and the other of the money laundering complaint, before the committal mechanism can operate. Since the Special PMLA Court at Madurai had not taken cognizance, the Court held that the ED's application could not be allowed. It also noted that the Special Court at Madurai had sought prosecution sanction against Radhakrishnan, but the ED had failed to produce it. It held:

“The Special Court at Madurai itself asked for the sanction in September 2025. Nearly a year has gone by and the petitioner has still not produced the same. In the absence of such sanction being produced, the Special Court is not likely to take cognizance against the second respondent.”

Further, the Bench held that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is intended to prevent parallel trials and conflicting findings and not to reopen proceedings that have already reached the final stage. It observed:

“To commit such a case, at this stage, to the Special Court at Madurai, which has not even taken cognizance of the connected money laundering complaint would simply delay the case before the Thoothukudi Court, which is on the verge of conclusion.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the ED's petition, vacated the interim stay on the disproportionate assets proceedings and directed the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, to proceed with the matter expeditiously.

For Petitioner: Advocate P. Sidharthan, Special Public Prosecutor (ED)

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Advocates Arun Anbumani ( Additional Public Prosecutor), M Dinesh (Govt Advocate), K.R Ramesh Kumar and A Nagarajan