Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Pushpraj Bajaj, S/O Late Shyam Sundar Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condoning the delay in filing (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the legal challenge (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments against cognizance (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. violation of section 223 of bnss (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. the right to be heard in cognizance (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. procedural fairness in criminal cases (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. arguments on irregularities (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. lack of prejudice and impact on proceedings (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. discussion on cognizance stage procedures (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. counterarguments to procedural compliance (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. final arguments on legal interpretation (Para 36 , 37) |
| 12. judgment considerations discussed (Para 38 , 39) |
| 13. mandate for procedural compliance highlighted (Para 40 , 42 , 45 , 46) |
| 14. cognizance requirements clarified (Para 43 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. ordering remand for fresh decision (Para 52) |
| 16. final ruling and implications (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of about 88 days in preferring this revision application.
2. For the reasons mentioned in this interlocutory application, I am
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 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 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 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 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.
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....
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
