2026 Supreme(Jhk) 255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Shri Yash Jalan - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director – Opposite Party 
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2026 

PMLA proceedings against new accused via supplementary complaint need no pre-cognizance hearing under BNSS Section 223 if original cognizance pre-exists; money laundering offence independent, prosecutable sans predicate accusation upon prima facie knowing assistance with proceeds.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 44(1)(ii), 70, 2(1)(u), 2(1)(v) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 223 (proviso), 528 - Quashing criminal proceedings - Cognizance taken on original prosecution complaint prior to BNSS enforcement; supplementary complaint deemed part of original, no fresh cognizance or pre-cognizance hearing required for new accused - Money laundering offence independent of predicate offence; person knowingly assisting processes connected with proceeds of crime (concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection as untainted) prosecutable sans accusation in scheduled offence - Prima facie case made where material shows knowing provision of vessel for illegal mineral transport, receipt of tainted payments from syndicate, witness statements attributing control and commercial responsibility - Inherent powers under Section 528 exercised sparingly; quashing unwarranted if material displaces not accusations but permits trial. (Paras 28-54, 55-67, 68-117)

(B) Cognizance - Of offence, not offender; occurs on judicial application of mind to complaint - Supplementary complaints post-original cognizance constitute procedural steps for summons, saved by BNSS Section 531(2)(a) for pending investigations. (Paras 32-50)

Facts of the case:
Petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash PMLA proceedings in ECIR arising from FIR for criminal conspiracy linked to illegal mining syndicate generating proceeds exceeding ₹1000 crores; petitioner added via 5th supplementary complaint as facilitator providing vessel for illegal transportation; unexplained cash ₹3.49 crores seized, vessel frozen as instrumentality, bank balances frozen; cognizance order issued summons without pre-hearing.

Findings of Court:
No violation of Section 223 BNSS proviso as cognizance pre-dated BNSS and supplementary deemed continuation; proceedings maintainable independent of predicate accusation; prima facie material including money trail of ₹2.75 crores from tainted accounts, vessel interception without permits carrying illegal cargo, statements confirming operational control establishes knowing involvement.

Issues: (I) Whether pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 BNSS mandatory for supplementary complaint post-original cognizance? (II) Whether proceedings maintainable against accused not named in predicate offence? (III) Whether prima facie material exists warranting proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi: Original cognizance and PMLA Section 44 Explanation preclude fresh hearing requirement; offence under Section 3 triggered by knowing assistance in proceeds processes from scheduled offences like conspiracy in illegal mining/transport; quashing demands material of sterling quality ruling out prosecution case entirely, absent here amid corroborated evidence of facilitation and benefit from proceeds.

Result: Petition dismissed.