Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Tutu Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the case. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on violation of procedural rights. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. supreme court rulings on cognizance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. importance of legislative intent in cognizance. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. safeguards under criminal law when severe punishments are involved. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. issues concerning the validity of procedures. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 7. conclusion affirming procedural violations vitiate orders. (Para 73 , 74 , 75) |
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
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 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 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
