ORDER 1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC has been filed against the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in Special Case No.32/2013, whereby rejected the application under section 453 of the CrPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant made a complaint against the non-applicants No.2 and 3 and on that basis Police Station Kotwali, Mhow, District Indore registered Crime No.436/2011 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC. The matter was handed over to the non-applicant No.1 for investigation. The non-applicant No.1 thereupon registered a case against the non-applicants No.2 and 3 under section 3 read with section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [for short “the Act”]. During investigation, the non-applicant No.1 seized movable and immovable properties including Rs.2,55,82,159.00 in cash, found in possession of the non-applicants No.2 and 3. Thereafter filed the complaint against them under section 3 read with section 4 of the Act, which was registered as Special Case No.32/2013. The applicant filed an application under section 453 of the CrPC that the applicant is entitled to the possession of the cash amount of Rs.2,55,82,159.00, hence it be delivered to him. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.5.2014 dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the non-applicants. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. Learned Special Judge has rejected the application under section 453 of the CrPC on 2 grounds, namely, (i) It is not clear that authorized officer has signed the application filed on behalf of the applicant Bank; and (ii) The adjudicating authority passed the order of attachment of property under section 8(3) of the Act, that shall continue during pendency of proceedings. Therefore, the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to pass order on the application. 6. Firstly, the powers under section 453 of the CrPC is to be exercised at the time of conclusion of the trial and to save the interest of innocent purchaser. The applicant Bank is a complainant and not an innocent purchaser. Therefore, the application should have been filed under section 451 of the CrPC for interim custody of the amount during pendency of the trial. 7. The applicant Bank is a complainant and not an innocent purchaser. Therefore, the application should have been filed under section 451 of the CrPC for interim custody of the amount during pendency of the trial. 7. Learned Special Judge has rejected the application on the ground that it is not clear that who has signed the application on behalf of the applicant Bank. Instead of dismissing the application on this ground, learned Special Judge should have directed to clarify this fact. However, the learned Special Judge has rejected the application on the flimsy ground. 8. Now, I have considered the second ground in regard to jurisdiction of Special Judge to decide such an application. The non-applicant No.1 – Directorate of Enforcement is a Prosecuting Agency. Once Prosecuting Agency has filed the complaint before the Special Judge, then the Special Judge has power to dispose of the property as per the provisions of the CrPC section 65 of the Act relates to applicability of the CrPC which reads as under :- “65. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply.- The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act.” 9. The adjudicating authority has passed the order of attachment of property under sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act, which reads as under :- “8. Adjudication :-- (1) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (2) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... The adjudicating authority has passed the order of attachment of property under sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act, which reads as under :- “8. Adjudication :-- (1) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (2) ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (3) Where the adjudicating authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of section 5 or retention of property or record seized or frozen under section 17 or section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property or record shall - (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a Court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and (b) becomes final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section 60 by the adjudicating authority; Sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act reads as under :- “(5) Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has been committed, it shall order that such property involved in the money-laundering or which has been used for commission of the offence of money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central Government.” 10. Sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act provides that on conclusion of trial of an offence under the Act, the Special Court shall pass the order in regard to the property which is involved in commission of the offence under the Act. Section 65 of the Act provides that the provisions of the CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act. There is no bar in the Act that during pendency of the trial Special Judge cannot order for custody and disposal of property as per section 451 of the CrPC. There is no bar in the Act that during pendency of the trial Special Judge cannot order for custody and disposal of property as per section 451 of the CrPC. Thus, the finding of learned Special Judge that once the adjudicating authority passed the order of attachment of property under sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act, thereafter during the pendency of the proceedings the Special Judge has no power to pass order for interim custody of the property, is erroneous. 11. I am of the view that once the complaint has been filed before the Special Judge, the Special Judge can exercise the power for disposal of property as per the provisions of CrPC even during pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the learned Special Judge committed an error of law. The order is hereby set aside. The applicant is at liberty to file fresh application through duly authorized officer. Thus, the revision is allowed as indicated above. S. K. Sharma for applicant; None for non-applicants.