Sabu K.S. vs CBI 2026 - Accused Can Directly Approach High Court under Section 447 BNSS

The case, Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2026), was decided by Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court. The judgment c

Accused Can Directly Approach High Court under Section 447 BNSS: Kerala High Court Clarifies Transfer Jurisdiction

In an important judgment interpreting the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Kerala High Court recently held that an accused person can directly approach the High Court under Section 447 BNSS for transfer of cases involving Special Courts constituted under special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The case, Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2026), was decided by Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court. The judgment clarified that the proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS, which ordinarily requires a party to first approach the Sessions Judge before filing a transfer petition before the High Court, does not apply to Special Courts created under special statutes.

The ruling is significant because it clarifies:

• Transfer powers of the High Court
• Rights of accused persons
• Scope of Section 447 BNSS
• Jurisdiction of Special Courts
• Relationship between PMLA and predicate offences

The judgment is likely to become an important precedent in criminal procedure and special statute litigation.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Sabu K.S., was facing proceedings in two separate criminal cases pending before different Special CBI Courts at Ernakulam.

The first case:

• C.C. No. 3/2014
• Pending before Special CBI Court-I, Ernakulam
• Related to offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

The second case:

• S.C. No. 329/2017
• Pending before Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam
• Related to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act constituted the “predicate offences” for the PMLA proceedings.

The petitioner sought transfer of the PMLA case from Special CBI Court-I to Special CBI Court-II so that both matters could be considered simultaneously by the same judge.

---

What Did the CBI Argue?

The Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the transfer petition on two major grounds.

First Argument

The CBI argued that under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, only the authorised authority could seek transfer or committal of a scheduled offence case to the PMLA Court.

According to the CBI:

• The accused had no independent right
• Only authorised agencies could invoke the mechanism

Second Argument

The CBI also relied on the proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS.

According to this proviso:

• A person seeking transfer between criminal courts within the same sessions division must first approach the Sessions Judge
• Only after rejection by the Sessions Judge can the High Court be approached

The CBI therefore argued that the petition before the High Court was not maintainable directly.

---

Kerala High Court’s Main Ruling

Justice A. Badharudeen rejected both objections raised by the CBI.

The Court held that:

• The accused can directly invoke Section 447 BNSS
• Special Courts under special statutes are outside the ordinary sessions hierarchy
• Prior rejection by the Sessions Judge is not necessary in such cases

This interpretation significantly expands procedural clarity under the new BNSS framework.

---

Right of the Accused to Seek Transfer

The Court held that Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA is merely an enabling provision.

It empowers the authorised authority to seek transfer, but it does not bar other aggrieved persons from approaching the High Court under Section 447 BNSS.

The Court emphasized that:

• The accused is also an interested party
• Transfer jurisdiction under Section 447 remains available
• Special statute provisions do not extinguish general procedural rights unless expressly barred

Thus, even a person other than the authority who initiated the complaint may seek transfer before the High Court.

---

Interpretation of Section 447 BNSS

$Section\ 447\ BNSS$

Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the transfer powers of the High Court.

The provision authorizes the High Court to transfer cases when:

• Fair trial is not possible
• Questions of unusual legal difficulty arise
• Transfer is necessary for convenience
• Transfer is expedient for the ends of justice

The section is substantially similar to Section 407 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

Proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS

One important part of Section 447 is the proviso to sub-section (2).

The proviso generally states:

A person cannot directly approach the High Court for transfer between two criminal courts within the same sessions division unless the Sessions Judge has first rejected such a request.

This rule ordinarily applies to courts functioning within the normal criminal court hierarchy.

However, the Kerala High Court clarified that this restriction does not apply to Special Courts established under special statutes like:

• PMLA
• PC Act

---

Why Special Courts Are Different

The Court explained that Special Courts constituted under special statutes possess unique characteristics.

According to the judgment:

• They exercise exclusive statutory jurisdiction
• They are notified separately
• They do not function within the ordinary sessions court structure

Therefore, such courts cannot automatically be treated as ordinary subordinate criminal courts for purposes of the proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS.

This reasoning formed the basis for allowing direct approach to the High Court.

---

Predicate Offence and PMLA Proceedings

The judgment also discussed the relationship between predicate offences and PMLA cases.

A “predicate offence” refers to the underlying criminal offence from which proceeds of crime are allegedly generated.

In this case:

• The PC Act offences formed the predicate offences
• The PMLA proceedings depended upon them

The Court observed that a finding regarding the scheduled offence is essential before the PMLA prosecution can proceed fully.

---

Joint Trial Not Permissible

The Court clarified another important legal point.

It held that:

• Joint trial of scheduled offence cases and PMLA offences is legally impossible

This is because:

• The predicate offence must first be established
• PMLA proceedings are dependent upon proceeds generated through scheduled offences

However, the Court also clarified that simultaneous consideration by the same judge does not amount to a joint trial.

This distinction was important in allowing the transfer request.

---

Simultaneous Trial vs Joint Trial

The judgment carefully distinguished between:

Joint Trial

• Both offences tried together as one proceeding

Simultaneous Trial

• Separate proceedings
• Same judge handling both matters
• Independent adjudication maintained

The Court held that simultaneous consideration promotes judicial efficiency without violating statutory requirements.

---

Why the Transfer Was Allowed

The Kerala High Court ultimately allowed the transfer because:

• Both courts possessed jurisdiction under PMLA and PC Act
• Same judge considering related matters would promote justice
• Judicial efficiency would improve
• No prejudice would be caused

Accordingly, C.C. No. 3/2014 was transferred from Special CBI Court-I to Special CBI Court-II, Ernakulam.

---

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is important for several reasons.

Clarifies Rights of the Accused

The ruling confirms that accused persons are not excluded from invoking transfer jurisdiction under Section 447 BNSS.

Interpretation of BNSS

This is one of the important judicial interpretations of the newly enacted BNSS.

Special Courts Jurisdiction

The judgment clarifies how Special Courts should be treated procedurally.

PMLA Litigation

The ruling will influence future transfer petitions in money laundering cases.

---

What is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The BNSS modernized India’s criminal procedure framework and introduced procedural reforms relating to:

• Investigation
• Arrest
• Bail
• Trial
• Appeals
• Transfer powers

Section 447 BNSS corresponds substantially to the earlier Section 407 CrPC.

---

Key Features of Section 447 BNSS

The section empowers the High Court to:

• Transfer criminal cases
• Transfer appeals
• Commit cases to Sessions Courts
• Try matters itself
• Ensure fair administration of justice

Applications may be filed:

• By interested parties
• On reports of lower courts
• Suo motu by the High Court

The provision also allows the High Court to stay proceedings pending transfer decisions.

---

Special Courts Under Special Statutes

India has several Special Courts created under special statutes.

Examples include:

• PMLA Courts
• CBI Courts
• NDPS Courts
• NIA Courts
• PC Act Courts

These courts possess specialized jurisdiction and often operate differently from regular criminal courts.

The Kerala High Court judgment recognizes this structural distinction.

---

Importance for Criminal Procedure Law

The ruling is likely to become significant in procedural jurisprudence because it clarifies:

• Scope of High Court transfer powers
• Procedural rights under BNSS
• Treatment of Special Courts
• Relationship between special statutes and general criminal procedure

Future courts may rely upon this interpretation in transfer disputes involving special statutory tribunals and courts.

---

Judicial Approach in the Judgment

The Court adopted a purposive and practical interpretation of procedural law.

Instead of rigidly applying the proviso to Section 447(2), the Court examined:

• Nature of Special Courts
• Legislative intent
• Practical functioning of PMLA proceedings
• Interests of justice

This approach reflects judicial flexibility in interpreting procedural statutes.

---

Impact on Future PMLA Cases

The judgment may influence future PMLA litigation significantly.

Accused persons may now rely upon this ruling to:

• Seek transfer directly before High Courts
• Avoid procedural hurdles
• Request simultaneous consideration of connected cases

The ruling may also improve consistency in adjudication involving predicate offences and money laundering cases.

---

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court judgment in Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2026) is an important decision interpreting Section 447 of the BNSS and the procedural framework governing Special Courts.

The Court held that an accused person can directly approach the High Court for transfer of cases involving Special Courts under statutes such as the PMLA and PC Act, without first approaching the Sessions Judge.

The judgment also clarified that simultaneous consideration of predicate offences and PMLA proceedings by the same judge does not amount to a prohibited joint trial.

This ruling strengthens procedural clarity under the BNSS and is expected to play a major role in future criminal procedure and money laundering litigation across India.