Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
AMAR KHULLAR – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8053 OF 2025|SC NO.7 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP, SR SRI SIDHARTHA AGGARWAL
For the Respondents: SMT SEETHA S, SR.PP, SRI JAISANKAR V NAIR, SC KUMARI CRISTY
The failure to afford an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of offences violates principles of natural justice under Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without affording him an opportunity of being heard as required under Section 223(1) of the BNSS. The Court finds that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and sets aside the order, directing the Special Court to reconsider the matter afresh. The Court allows the petition based on the lack of a hearing opportunity before cognizance was taken.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cognizance without hearing (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding the lack of opportunity to defend (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's recognition of procedural irregularity (Para 4) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the 13th accused in S.C.No.7/2025/
PMLA on the file of the Court of the Special Court for PMLA Cases, Ernakulam ('Special Court', in short), which arises out of Crime No.ECIR/KCZO/06/2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Kochi, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA', in short), which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
2. The petitioner's case is that, the above crime was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement on the allegation that the Veeyapuram Police Station, Alappuzha, has registered Crime No.481/2023 against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 . Subsequently, the Kerala Police has also registered ten First Information Reports and the Haryana Police had registered one First Information Report on a similar set of allegations as in the first crime.
3. The petitioner contends that he was not granted an opportunity of being heard before cognizance of the offence was taken as envisaged under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS and the principles laid down by this Court inSaji John v. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement [2025 KHC 819] . Therefore, the entire proceedings leading to Annexure A2 order, is vitiated and are liable to be quashed
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in addition to the irregularity of taking cognizance, the petitioner has raised other valid contentions in the Crl.M.C.
6. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of being heard by the Trial Court before the cognizance of the offence was taken as per the mandate under Section 223(1)
of the BNSS before taking cognizance of the offence. 7. Taking into consideration of the fact that the Special Court has taken cognizance of the offence without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and by reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the Special Court, I allow the Crl.M.C by setting aside Annexure A2 order. The Special Court is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as envisaged under Section 223(1) of the BNSS . It will be upto the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court, who in turn is directed to consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED BEARING SC NO. 7 OF 2025 DATED 29.03.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR PMLA CASES AT ERNAKULAM.
