Law clarified on the issue that whether the trial of offence of money-laundering should follow the trial of the scheduled/predicate offence or vice versa. Held, Therefore, the question of territorial jurisdiction in this case requires an enquiry into a question of fact as to the place where the alleged proceeds of crime were (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii) acquired; or (iv) used. This question of fact will actually depend upon the evidence that unfolds before the Trial Court. It will be useful in this regard to extract Paragraph 38 of the decision in Kaushik Chatterjee which reads as follows: –
“38. But be that as it may, the upshot of the above discussion is:
38.1. That the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an “offence” or “offender” as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence.
38.2. That if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code.
38.3. That these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same.”
Therefore, we are of the view that the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence. Hence, this question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out. Para 48-49
[Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 4 SCC 357]