{"id":7052,"date":"2025-05-12T05:22:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-11T23:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/sc-pre-cognizance-hearing-mandatory-for-pmla-complaints-filed-after-bnss-came-into-force\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:29:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T11:59:05","slug":"sc-pre-cognizance-hearing-mandatory-for-pmla-complaints-filed-after-bnss-came-into-force","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/sc-pre-cognizance-hearing-mandatory-for-pmla-complaints-filed-after-bnss-came-into-force\/","title":{"rendered":"SC: Pre-Cognizance Hearing Mandatory for PMLA Complaints Filed After BNSS Came Into Force"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan<\/strong> recently held that a Special Court must provide the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), in accordance with the mandate of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The bench quashed a cognizance order dated 20th November, 2024, passed by a Special Court, citing non-compliance with Section 223(1) of the BNSS. The BNSS, which came into force on 1st July, 2024, introduced a significant procedural safeguard absent in the previous Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): a proviso to Section 223(1) that prohibits courts from taking cognizance without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

“In this case, admittedly, the opportunity was not given to the accused by the learned Special Judge before taking cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint. Only on that ground, the order dated 20th November 2024 will have to be set aside,”<\/em><\/strong> the Court observed.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The bench emphasized that this procedural safeguard must be strictly observed, even in proceedings under the PMLA. Citing the precedent set in Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/strong><\/a>, the Court reiterated that complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA are governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC, and by extension, now fall under the ambit of Chapter 16 (Sections 223 to 226) of the BNSS.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju advanced two submissions.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n