Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
Saji John, S/o Late Shri Tk Ulahannan – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal miscellaneous case (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of unlawful asset acquisition (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. procedural safeguards in cognizance (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. comparison with previous case law (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. requirements under section 223(1) of bnss (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. cognizance without hearing is non est (Para 13) |
| 7. order to revert to pre-cognizance stage (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNSS’ for short], to quash all further proceedings in S.C. (PMLA) No.2 of 2025 on the files of the Court of the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Ernakulam, arose out of ECIR/KCZO/07/2020 initiated pursuant to FIR No.V.C.02/2014/SCE of VACB, Special Cell, Ernakulam. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Enforcement Directorate, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the 1st accused/1st petitioner, while working as a Government servant during the period
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 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....
No cognizance of an offence shall be taken by Magistrate without giving accused opportunity of being heard.
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 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 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 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 ....
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
