Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Parvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context of pmla complaint and judicial history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding bnss applicability to pending pmla cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. analysis of statutory intersection between pmla and bnss provisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. distinction between ministerial acts and judicial 'inquiry' requiring hearing. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. failure to provide mandatory hearing as required by bnss vitiates cognizance. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand wherein, an issue with respect to the scope and applicability of the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”) had arisen, while dealing with a case where the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “PMLA”) had been filed prior to the date of commencement of the .
BRIEF FACTS:
The provision requiring an accused to be heard before cognisance is a mandatory, substantive right. Cognisance orders passed without such a hearing are void ab initio, and ministerial registration of....
The requirement to provide an accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence is a mandatory, substantive right. This procedural mandate applies to all cognizance orders pas....
The denial of an opportunity for a hearing before taking cognizance vitiates the cognizance order and subsequent proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, constituting a violation of ....
The court established that a right to hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita applies, requiring courts to afford such hearing before taking cognizance of offences against the accused.
The court upheld that cognizance is taken of the offence rather than the offender, enabling supplementary complaints without violating prior hearing mandates, confirming no sanction under Section 197....
A magistrate must adhere to procedural safeguards, including providing the accused a hearing before taking cognizance, as mandated by Section 223 of BNSS; failure to comply renders the cognizance ord....
The court emphasized that cognizance of an offense cannot be taken without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
The court emphasized that under Section 223(1) of BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and provide the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
