Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Sundresh, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ
Parvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and timeline of the case regarding cognisance under pmla. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments on applicability of bnss vs crpc and the requirement of hearing the accused. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. interpretation of pmla sections and bnss sections regarding trials and savings clauses. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. applying the mandatory hearing requirement under section 223(1) bnss for pmla cases. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. setting aside improper orders and directing de novo cognizance hearing. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
PARVINDER SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
19.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand wherein, an issue with respect to the scope and applicability of the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”) had arisen, while dealing with a case where the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinaft
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
