Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J
Pushpraj Bajaj, S/O Late Shyam Sundar Bajaj - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No.685 of 2025
Decided on : 11-11-2025
| 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 satisfied that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this revision application within time.
3. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing this revision application is hereby condoned.
Cr. Revison No.685 of 2025
4. The instant criminal revision has been filed under Sections 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’) seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PMLA), Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Special Court’) in Special Trial No. (PMLA) 10/2024 along with proceedings emanating therefrom, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) against the petitioner and others.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/opposite party no.2, which is an agency mandated with the task of enforcing the provisions of PMLA, registered ECIR/PTZO/04/2024 dated 14.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ECIR’) and an Addendum ECIR dated 20.09.2024 on the strength of two FIRs against one Sanjeev Hans and others wherein it has been alleged that Sanjeev Hans, while in public service, amassed huge assets, acquired with the help of one Gulab Yadav and Harloveleen Kaur. It appears the petitioner was neither named in the aforesaid FIRs nor in ECIR or Addendum ECIR.
6. It further transpires that the petitioner was arrested and taken into custody on 22.10.2024 and he has challenged the grounds of arrest and remand to judicial custody by filing Cr.W.J.C.No. 63 of 2025, which has been pending before this Court. During the course of investigation into the aforesaid ECIR/Addendum ECIR, the respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 filed Prosecution Complaint dated 16.12.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC’) under Section 44 (1) (b) of PMLA before the learned Special Court arraigning eight persons/entities as accused including this petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused no.5. It further transpires that two supplementary prosecution complaints (hereinafter referred to as ‘SPC’) were also filed on 08.01.2025 and 09.01.2025, respectively against the petitioner and eight other persons/entities.
7. On the basis of material available on record, the learned Special Court, vide order dated 08.01.2025, took cognizance for the offences defined under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA against the petitioner and other accused persons/entities and issued process to them. This order is under challenge before this Court.
8. Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the im
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
