Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Directorate of Enforcement, Sri Shishir Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 - Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through the Registrar General, and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4665 of 2024, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 448 of BNSS for transfer of Complaint Case No. 30/2018 titled Enforcement Directorate v. Brahma Prakash Singh, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Court PMLA to another Court, has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Managing Director in LACFEDD, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ imprisonment for committing offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act by means of a judgment and order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Lucknow in Case No. 4/2012. The applicant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2015 before this Court and he has been granted bail by means of an order dated 21.05.2015. 4. On 23.01.2018, the Directorate of Enforcement filed Complaint Case No. 30/2018, under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner filed an application under Section 448 of BNSS for transfer of the complaint from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Judge, E.D. inter alia stating that the Presiding Officer of the Court has demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1 crore from the counsel for the petitioner. In para 14 of the application he stated that on 17.09.2024, after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when the Presiding Officer of the Court was alone on the dais, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1 crore for acquittal of the accused and release of the confiscated property but the counsel for the petitioner declined to pay illegal gratification and he stated that he would argue the case on its merit. On 12.12.2024 the petitioner moved a complaint in this regard to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court. 5. Apparently, no action has been taken till date on the aforesaid complaint sent by the petitioner to Hon’ble Chief Justice presumably because the Hon’ble Chief Justice did not find any substance in the allegations levelled in the complaint. 6. The petitioner further stated in the transfer application that his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling the Investigating Officer/ complainant/ Prosecution Witness No. 5 filed on 17.09.2024, was rejected by means of an order dated 17.09.2024, without considering judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Directorate of Enforcement, Sri Shishir Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 - Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through the Registrar General, and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA/Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4665 of 2024, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 448 of BNSS for transfer of Complaint Case No. 30/2018 titled Enforcement Directorate v. Brahma Prakash Singh, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Court PMLA to another Court, has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Managing Director in LACFEDD, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ imprisonment for committing offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act by means of a judgment and order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Lucknow in Case No. 4/2012. The applicant has filed Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2015 before this Court and he has been granted bail by means of an order dated 21.05.2015. 4. On 23.01.2018, the Directorate of Enforcement filed Complaint Case No. 30/2018, under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner filed an application under Section 448 of BNSS for transfer of the complaint from the Court of Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Judge, E.D. inter alia stating that the Presiding Officer of the Court has demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1 crore from the counsel for the petitioner. In para 14 of the application he stated that on 17.09.2024, after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when the Presiding Officer of the Court was alone on the dais, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1 crore for acquittal of the accused and release of the confiscated property but the counsel for the petitioner declined to pay illegal gratification and he stated that he would argue the case on its merit. On 12.12.2024 the petitioner moved a complaint in this regard to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court. 5. Apparently, no action has been taken till date on the aforesaid complaint sent by the petitioner to Hon’ble Chief Justice presumably because the Hon’ble Chief Justice did not find any substance in the allegations levelled in the complaint. 6. The petitioner further stated in the transfer application that his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling the Investigating Officer/ complainant/ Prosecution Witness No. 5 filed on 17.09.2024, was rejected by means of an order dated 17.09.2024, without considering judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Submit