Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 844

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
M/s Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Mr. Mohan Lal – Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director - Opposite Party
Application U/s 482 No. 1535 of 2026, Application U/s 482 No. 2175 of 2026
Decided On : 03-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Pranjal Krishna, Suhaib Ashraf
For the Opposite Party : Rohit Tripathi, Kuldeep Srivastava.

The proviso to Section 223 of the new procedural code, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance, necessitates that the prosecution provide the accused with the complaint and all relied-upon documents at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair and meaningful hearing.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 223 - Proviso - Cognizance of offence - Opportunity of hearing - Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Right to fair trial - Accused entitled to receive copies of complaint and annexed documents at pre-cognizance stage - An opportunity of hearing afforded to an accused person is not a mere formality and requires that the accused be apprised of the material relied upon by the prosecution to make an effective submission before the court. (Paras 12, 19, 20, 23)

(B) Procedural Law - Interpretation of Statutes - When a new statute introduces a specific proviso for an opportunity of hearing at the pre-cognizance stage which was absent in the repealed code, the legislature’s intent is to provide the accused a meaningful opportunity to defend interests, which necessitates disclosure of relevant documents. (Paras 20, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners approached the court challenging an order passed by the trial court, which denied their request for copies of the complaint along with accompanying annexed documents before cognizance of the offence was taken. The trial court had held that documents are only required to be supplied after the court takes cognizance and issues summons to the accused. The petitioners sought to quash this order, arguing that without access to the evidentiary material, they cannot effectively exercise their right to be heard as provided under the procedural code.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the introduction of a proviso to Section 223 of the new procedural code, regarding the opportunity of hearing at the pre-cognizance stage, represents a departure from the earlier legal position. The court ruled that the mandate for a hearing before cognizance must be implemented meaningfully, which requires the disclosure of the prosecution material that the accused would otherwise be unable to rebut.

Issues: Whether the accused has a legal right to receive copies of the complaint and relied-upon documents from the prosecution before the trial court takes cognizance of the offence under the prevailing procedural law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory requirement to provide an 'opportunity of hearing' under the new procedural code, read with the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, implies that the accused must be furnished with the complaint and supporting documents before the court takes cognizance, thereby ensuring the hearing is not an empty formality.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned order set aside; trial court directed to provide copies of the documents.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for document disclosure in pmla complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. dispute on timing of document supply pre-cognizance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. interpretation of bnss section 223 proviso regarding fair trial rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. mandatory provision of documents to accused before cognizance under bnss. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna and Sri Amar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite party-Directorate of Enforcement and perused the records.

2. Both the aforesaid petitions have been filed under Section 528 BNSS challenging the validity of an order dated 13.01.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Court No.3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No.5058 of 2025, arising out of ECIR No.ALSZO/06/2020, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Police Station Enforcement Directorate, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners for being supplied copies of documents annexed to the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement have been rejected.

3. As only a single legal point is involved in both the petitions, the Directorate of Enforcement has filed a counter affidavit in Application No. 1535 of 2026 only and the learned Counsel for ED has stated that the same may be read for deciding both the petitions and there is no requirement for filing a separate counter affidavit in the other petition.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 04.11.2019 the CBI had filed an F.I.R. bearing No. RC0062019A0016 in Police Station CBI/ACB, under Sections 120-B, 420, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a company M/s JVL Agro Industries Limited, seven other named persons and some unknown public servants alleging that a complaint dated 02.11.2019 had been received from an Assistant General Manager of Bank of Baroda, Varanasi Region, Varanasi alleging commission of offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, falsification of records and criminal misconduct by the Chairman, Directors/ Guarantors of M/s JVL Agro Industries Limited, Chartered Accountant of M/s Singh Dixit and Company, Chartered Account of M/s Sparsh and Company and some unknown public servants, whereby the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank had been cheated to the tune of Rs.1036.43 crores. The petitioners were not named in the F.I.R.

5. After investigation, the CBI submitted a charge sheet dated 27.12.2024 against M/s JVL Agro Industries Limited, Satya Narayan Jhunjhunwala, Adarsh Jhunjhunwala, Rajneesh Vishwakarma, Rahul Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C. The petitioners were not named in the charge-sheet.

6. Thereafter the Directorate of Enforcement has filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judge, CBI-III, Lucknow against 25 parties, including some companies and some individuals, which also include M/s Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd (the applicant in Application No.1535 of 2026) and Anil Kumar Khemka (the applicant in Application No.2175 of 2026. Annexure No.1 to the complaint contains a list of 81 documents which are relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement and which runs into 2231 pages.

7. The Special Judge issued notices to the accused persons under Section 223(1) BNSS. The petitioners and the other accused persons filed applications before the Special judge requesting for being provided with the copies of the complaint along with all its annexures and the documents relied upon, to enable them to advance submissions. The application has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 holding that the accused persons are entitled to received the copies of the documents only after the Court takes cognizance of the offence under PMLA, whereas in the present case co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(All) 844

The proviso to Section 223 of the new procedural code, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance, necessitates that the prosecution provide the accused with the complaint and all relied-upon documents at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair and meaningful hearing.

Cases Referred (2)