Section 447 BNSS: Kerala High Court Clarifies When Litigants Can Directly Approach the High Court for Transfer Between Special Courts

Introduction

Can an accused directly approach the High Court to transfer a criminal case from one Special Court to another, or must the Sessions Judge always be approached first? 

This seemingly procedural question has significant implications for white-collar crime litigation, particularly where multiple investigations arising from the same transaction are pending before different Special Courts. 

In Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2026)¹, the Kerala High Court became one of the first constitutional courts to interpret Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision governing transfer of criminal cases by the High Court. 

The Court held that the requirement under Section 447(2) to first approach the Sessions Judge does not apply where the transfer is sought between Special Courts constituted under special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 

Instead, litigants may directly invoke the High Court’s transfer jurisdiction. Although the ruling arose from proceedings under the PMLA and the PC Act, its reasoning is likely to influence transfer petitions involving numerous specialised tribunals and criminal courts created under central legislation. 

Why This Judgment Matters

The BNSS substantially reorganises India’s criminal procedure framework. Although many provisions mirror the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), courts are now beginning to interpret these provisions within the new statutory framework. Section 447 is one such provision. Transfer petitions may appear procedural, but in complex criminal prosecutions they often determine: 

• whether connected trials proceed together,  
• whether contradictory findings are avoided,  
• whether witnesses testify before multiple courts,  
• how judicial resources are utilised, and  
• whether an accused receives a fair and efficient trial.  

The Kerala High Court’s judgment therefore has consequences extending well beyond the facts of the case. 

Understanding Section 447 BNSS

Section 447 substantially corresponds to Section 407 of the CrPC. It empowers the High Court to transfer criminal cases where such transfer is necessary: 

• to secure a fair and impartial trial,  
• because complicated legal questions arise,  
• where transfer is otherwise required under the BNSS, or  
• where it is expedient in the interests of justice.  

Ordinarily, however, Section 447(2) requires an applicant seeking transfer within the same Sessions Division to first approach the Sessions Judge. Only after such request is refused can the High Court ordinarily be approached. The present case required the Court to determine whether this procedural requirement applies equally to Special Courts established under independent central statutes. 

The Factual Background

The petitioner faced two separate prosecutions arising from interconnected allegations. One prosecution was pending before the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The related money laundering prosecution was pending before the Special Court designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 

Since both proceedings involved overlapping facts, evidence and witnesses, the petitioner sought transfer of the corruption case so that both matters could proceed before the same Special Court. The prosecution objected. It argued that Section 447(2) required the petitioner to first approach the Sessions Judge before invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction. 

The Kerala High Court’s Decision

Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the prosecution’s objection. The Court held that the statutory requirement of first approaching the Sessions Judge is confined to transfers between ordinary criminal courts functioning within the Sessions hierarchy. Special Courts established under legislation such as the PMLA and the Prevention of Corruption Act occupy a different legal position. 

Their jurisdiction is conferred directly by statute and government notification rather than through the ordinary hierarchy of criminal courts. Since the Sessions Judge exercises no supervisory control over such Special Courts, insisting upon an application before the Sessions Judge would serve no practical or legal purpose. 

Accordingly, the High Court held that a litigant seeking transfer between such Special Courts may directly invoke Section 447 before the High Court. 

Why the Court’s Reasoning Is Significant

1. Functional Jurisdiction Prevails Over Formal Hierarchy

The judgment adopts a functional interpretation of criminal procedure. Instead of mechanically applying the Sessions hierarchy, the Court examined whether the Sessions Judge actually possesses authority over the courts concerned. Finding that no such supervisory relationship exists, the Court declined to impose an unnecessary procedural step. 

This reflects a purposive interpretation of the BNSS. 

2. Special Courts Occupy a Distinct Position

The judgment recognises that Special Courts created under statutes like the PMLA and the Prevention of Corruption Act are not merely renamed Sessions Courts. They exercise exclusive statutory jurisdiction and perform specialised adjudicatory functions. 

Consequently, procedural provisions governing ordinary criminal courts cannot automatically be extended to them. This reasoning may influence future litigation involving courts constituted under other special enactments. 

3. The High Court’s Transfer Jurisdiction Remains Broad

An equally important aspect of the decision concerns Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The prosecution argued that only the Enforcement Directorate could seek transfer or committal under the PMLA framework. The Court rejected this interpretation. 

It clarified that Section 447 BNSS independently empowers “any person” entitled to seek transfer before the High Court unless expressly barred by statute. Nothing in the PMLA excludes this jurisdiction. Accordingly, accused persons are equally entitled to invoke the High Court’s transfer powers where the statutory requirements are satisfied. 

Practical Implications

The ruling is likely to have significant practical consequences. 

For white-collar crime litigation

Proceedings under the PMLA, Prevention of Corruption Act, Companies Act and other economic offences frequently arise from the same factual matrix. The judgment may encourage greater consolidation of interconnected proceedings where appropriate. 

For accused persons

Litigants may no longer be required to undertake an unnecessary procedural exercise by approaching the Sessions Judge where the transfer concerns Special Courts beyond the Sessions hierarchy. This may reduce delay and litigation costs. 

For investigating agencies

Agencies such as the CBI and Enforcement Directorate may increasingly encounter transfer petitions seeking coordinated adjudication of parallel proceedings. 

For High Courts

The decision reinforces the constitutional supervisory role of High Courts in ensuring efficient criminal administration under the BNSS. 

Does the Judgment Extend Beyond PMLA and PC Act Cases?

Although the dispute specifically involved the PMLA and the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court’s reasoning is considerably broader. The principle appears to be this:  Where Special Courts derive their jurisdiction directly from a special statute and do not function within the ordinary supervisory control of the Sessions Judge, the procedural requirement under Section 447(2) may not apply. 

This interpretation could become relevant in future disputes involving Special Courts constituted under various central legislations. Whether other High Courts adopt a similar approach remains to be seen. 

Key Takeaways

The judgment establishes several important procedural principles: 

• Parties may directly approach the High Court under Section 447 BNSS for transfer between Special Courts constituted under special statutes.  
• The requirement of first approaching the Sessions Judge applies primarily to ordinary criminal courts within the Sessions hierarchy.  
• Special Courts under the PMLA and the Prevention of Corruption Act occupy a distinct statutory position.  
• Section 44 of the PMLA does not exclude the High Court’s independent transfer jurisdiction.  
• The decision promotes coordinated adjudication of interconnected criminal proceedings while reducing unnecessary procedural hurdles.  

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision in Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation is one of the earliest judicial interpretations of Section 447 of the BNSS, and it offers valuable clarity on the procedural framework governing transfers between Special Courts. 

More importantly, the judgment reflects a broader judicial philosophy that procedural rules should facilitate not obstruct the efficient administration of criminal justice. By recognising the distinct statutory status of Special Courts and permitting direct recourse to the High Court where appropriate, the Court has adopted a practical interpretation consistent with the objectives of the BNSS. 

As prosecutions under specialised legislations increasingly involve parallel proceedings before multiple forums, this ruling is likely to assume growing significance for litigants, investigating agencies and courts navigating India’s evolving criminal procedure landscape. 

1. TR.P(CRL.) NO. 3 OF 2026 ↩︎

Last Updated on 10 July, 2026