Supreme Court Rejects Plea of PFI Student Wing Leader KA Rauf Sheriff to Transfer Money Laundering Case to Kerala. The case was registered in 2018, based on a UAPA case related to a PFI arms training camp in Narath, Kerala in 2013. While 22 people were convicted under UAPA and other offenses in the arms training camp case, Rauf Sheriff was not named as an accused in that case.
KA Rauf Sheriff, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in December 2020 in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, had sought transfer of the case from Lucknow to Ernakulam. Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan and a few others were later added as accused in the same case before the Special Court at Lucknow.
Rauf Sheriff had argued before the Supreme Court that the proceedings pending before the Special Court in Lucknow were without jurisdiction as all alleged criminal activities took place in Kerala. He had also pointed out that seven out of the 10 accused in the case were residents of Kerala, as per the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate. Additionally, out of the total 40 witnesses, 26 hail from Kerala. The petitioner had further contended that since he was lawfully remanded to custody by the Special Judge in Ernakulam under Section 167(2) of the Code, filing the prosecution complaint in Lucknow was impermissible. However, the Supreme Court dismissed his plea.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had strongly opposed these arguments put forth by Rauf Sheriff. The ED's position was considered by a bench comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, who relied on a recent judgement in the case of Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Directorate. The judgement had held that the jurisdiction of the Special PMLA Court was not restricted to the place where the scheduled offence took place. The court had ruled that the court's jurisdiction extended to any place where any act constituting the offence of money laundering had occurred. Based on this judgement, the Supreme Court dismissed Rauf Sheriff's plea to transfer the case to Ernakulam.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had claimed that certain money transactions involving PFI leaders had taken place in Uttar Pradesh, citing this as a basis for claiming jurisdiction in Lucknow. The Supreme Court took note of this argument and concluded that the court in Lucknow could not be deemed to be completely devoid of jurisdiction.
However, the court also held that lack of jurisdiction was not a valid reason to order a transfer of the case. The bench observed that if a court lacked jurisdiction, it would be beneficial to the accused, and therefore, it did not need to be remedied at the accused's expense. The court stated that the first ground on which Rauf Sheriff sought the transfer of the case was not valid and hence rejected it.
The Supreme Court also dismissed Rauf Sheriff's arguments regarding the number of accused and witnesses from Kerala. The bench stated that the fact that 7 out of 10 accused persons were residents of Kerala was not a sufficient reason for transferring the investigation. The court also held that the majority of witnesses being from Kerala or South India did not warrant the transfer of the complaint.
Furthermore, the bench also rejected Rauf Sheriff's contentions with respect to Section 167(2) of the Code.
The bench stated that an order under Section 167(2) of the Code must be passed by the magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded, regardless of whether or not the magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the argument raised by Rauf Sheriff revolving around Section 167(2) of the Code was also dismissed.
S Nagamuthu, a senior advocate, represented Rauf Sheriff, while Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: Ka Rauf Sherif Vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Ors. | Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.89 Of 2023
TAGS: Supreme Court KA Rauf Sheriff Campus Front of India Popular Front of India money laundering case Lucknow Uttar Pradesh Ernakulam Kerala PMLA ED transfer plea jurisdiction Section 167(2) Code dismissal S Nagamuthu Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj
