ORDER : The petition has been filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 challenging the validity of the complaint registered in P.C. No.1/2016 and has also sought for setting aside of the order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge Court Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 24.05.2016 in Special Case No.120/2016 and has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings. 2. It is submitted that accused No.3 has died and accordingly the present proceedings are limited to accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 viz., petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of the present petition is that a complaint was made out before the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“the Act” for short) for an offence under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act. 4. It is on the basis of this complaint enclosed at page 17 that the Trial court having numbered the private complaint as P.C.No.1/2016, has taken cognizance for an offence under section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Act. 5. Learned Counsel Ms.Preeti Kareddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, being a special statute, the procedure prescribed under Section 45 of the Act requires to be strictly followed and proviso to Section 45(1) stipulates that the Special court shall not take cognizance of an offence under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by: I. The Director or II. Any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae Sri.Mruthyunjay Tata Bangi also submits that the provision does indicate a bar for taking cognizance. 7. It is also clear that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, being a special statute, the procedure prescribed would prevail over the general procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure where it is at variance with the general procedure. 8. Proviso to Section 45 (1) of the Act is reads as hereunder: 45. 7. It is also clear that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, being a special statute, the procedure prescribed would prevail over the general procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure where it is at variance with the general procedure. 8. Proviso to Section 45 (1) of the Act is reads as hereunder: 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by— (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. Section 46 (1) of the Act is reads as follows : 46. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before Special Court. — (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the persons conducting the prosecution before the Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor 9. Once the specific procedure prescribed under the Act provides for taking of cognizance only upon a complaint in writing made by a specified person, the question of falling back upon the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain a private complaint as envisaged under Section 190 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. does not arise, in light of the rider to the applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure in Section 46. 10. Taking note that the present complaint at page 17 is made by a private individual, the question of the Court taking cognizance and issuing process to the accused when the offence involved is one under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is impermissible. On this sole ground itself, the order of 24.05.2016 is set aside. Further, the entirety of the proceedings before the Trial Court is set aside. On this sole ground itself, the order of 24.05.2016 is set aside. Further, the entirety of the proceedings before the Trial Court is set aside. The trial court cannot take notice of a complaint by private persons without the complaint being presented through the authorities as specified in proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act. 11. Accordingly, the proceedings before the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge Court (PML Act) D.K. Mangalore, in Special Case No.120/2016 is set aside in its entirety.