The Allahabad High Court has refused to transfer a PMLA Case after the accused in the matter alleged that the presiding Judge demanded ₹1 Crore bribe from him calling it false and imaginary allegations.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging an order whereby an Application filed by the Petitioner for transfer of case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Court PMLA to another Court, was rejected.

The Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, ".......I am of the considered view that the transfer application has been filed on false and imaginary allegations so as to avoid facing trial before the presiding officer who has passed two orders against the petitioner. The learned Session Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 rejecting the transfer application filed by the petitioner and I find myself in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting passed on 11.04.2025."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Raj Vikram Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra.

Facts of the Case

While the Petitioner was working as Managing Director in LACFEDD, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ imprisonment for committing offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act. An Appeal against the same was filed before the Court and he was granted bail as well.

Later, the Directorate of Enforcement filed a Complaint against the Petitioner under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an Application under Section 448 of BNSS for transfer of the complaint from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Judge, E.D. inter alia stating that the Presiding Officer of the Court demanded illegal gratification of ₹1 crore from the Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner moved a complaint in this regard to the Chief Justice but no action was taken, presumably because the Chief Justice did not find any substance in the allegations levelled in the Complaint.

He further alleged that the Judge rejected two of his Applications without paying heed to the judgments cited by his Counsel. The Presiding Officer categorically refuted the allegation of demand of bribe in open Court and he further stated that when the Court is in session, the staff of the Court as well as the public prosecutor remain present there. The Session Judge observed that there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the Presiding Officer.

Reasoning By Court

The Court took note of the fact that the complaint was made for the first time after about a month as the Counsel for the Petitioner had taken the demand of bribe money lightly as he has to appear before the Courts day in and day out and he wanted to avoid any conflict with any judicial officer and it was only when several judicial orders were passed against the Petitioner, that the Counsel for the Petitioner thought it fit to submit a complaint against the Presiding Officer and file an application seeking transfer of case from that Court.

Noting that no reasonable person of ordinary prudence would believe that at the time of hearing of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., only the Presiding Officer and the counsel for the petitioner were present in the Court and no other person was present in the Court room and that the Presiding Officer demanded ₹1 crore from the Counsel for the Petitioner towards bribe.

"The petitioner did not move any application for transfer of the case or any complaint regarding demand of bribe money till several judicial orders were passed against him. It was only after he could not get a stay order in proceedings instituted before this Court challenging the order of the trial Court, that he chose to prefer an application seeking transfer of the case from the Court which had passed orders against the petitioner......Apparently, the transfer application has been devised to avoid facing trial before the Court, which has passed two judicial orders against the petitioner and the challenge to one of the orders has remained unsuccessful before this Court as no interim order has been passed by this Court till date," the Court observed.

It noted that the allegation levelled that the Application under Section 482 was made infructuous deliberately is apparently false, scandalous and contemptuous.

"The averment made in the comments submitted by the Presiding Officer of the trial Court to the Session Judge, that the petitioner and his Counsel want to mount pressure on the Court so that they can prolong the trial for they use loud noises in the Court room, is also correct, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner has persisted with this conduct and he has used loud voice in this Court also and he insisted that this Court should deal with all the judgments that had been referred by him before the trial Court in support of his applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Section 161 read with Sections 16 & 145 of the Evidence Act, whereas those judgments are not relevant for examining the legality of the order rejecting the transfer application," the Court further noted.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Brahma Prakash Singh vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:31387)

Click here to read/ download Order








Allahabad High CourtJustice Subhash Vidyarthi

Sheetal Joon