IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Tutu Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. The present Criminal Revisions assail an order dated February 15, 2025, whereby the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta, acting in the capacity of Special Court under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”) taking cognizance of offences under Sections 3 and 4, read with Section 70 of the PMLA against each of the petitioners. The petitioners further seek quashing of the proceedings initiated in connection with the complaint, being the ECIR/KLZO-I/10/2023 dated March 24, 2023.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the learned Special Judge took cognizance in violation of the First Proviso to Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNSS”) since no opportunity of hearing was given to any of the petitioners/accused persons prior to taking such cognizance. Learned senior counsel contends that the provision of affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused prior to taking cognizance has been introduced in the new regime of criminal laws after the introduction of the BNSS and was absent in its predecessor-statute, the Code of C
Yash Tuteja and another v. Union of India and others
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office
Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu
State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam
Avind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha
Ram Parshotam Mittal vs. Hotel Queen Road Private Limited
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
Fertigo Mktg. & Investment (P) Ltd. v. CBI
State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder
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 ....
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 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....
A Magistrate must examine the complainants and witnesses before issuing notices to the accused under Section 223(1) of BNSS, 2023, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.
Cognizance of offences – Notice is to be issued to accused only after examination of Complainant and present witnesses.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.