Supreme Court: Pre-Cognizance Hearing Mandatory Under BNSS in PMLA Cases
Court sets aside Uttarakhand HC order, ruling non-hearing vitiates cognizance.
BNSS safeguards apply even if complaint filed before its commencement.
By Legal Reporter
New Delhi: May 21, 2026:
The Supreme Court has ruled that once the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force on July 1, 2024, Special Courts cannot take cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without first granting the accused a hearing. This landmark decision sets aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order and clarifies that non-compliance with Section 223(1) BNSS vitiates cognizance itself.
Readers interested in Hindu succession law, women’s inheritance rights, partition disputes, and ancestral property claims should study the Supreme Court judgment in Savithri and Others Vs Karthyayani Amma and Others. The Court examined competing family property claims, succession principles, and the legal rights of heirs under Indian civil law. This judgment is a useful legal resource for understanding how courts interpret inheritance disputes, partition rights, and ownership issues involving ancestral and family properties.
Case Background
- Case Title: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
- Date: May 20, 2026
- Facts:
- ED filed a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 PMLA on June 24, 2024.
- BNSS replaced CrPC on July 1, 2024.
- Cognizance was taken on July 2, 2024, without hearing the accused.
- Uttarakhand High Court upheld the cognizance order.
- Supreme Court Verdict: Cognizance taken without hearing the accused violates Section 223(1) BNSS and is invalid.
Key Legal Provisions Discussed
1. Section 223(1) BNSS – Cognizance
- First proviso mandates that accused must be heard before cognizance is taken.
- Ensures fairness and protects liberty at the threshold stage.
2. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS – Savings Clause
- Preserves pending appeals, trials, inquiries, or investigations under CrPC.
- Court clarified that mere numbering of a complaint is not an “inquiry” under BNSS.
- Hence, savings clause did not apply.
3. Sections 44 & 45 PMLA
- Section 44: Special Court jurisdiction over PMLA offences.
- Section 45: Bail restrictions in money laundering cases.
- Cognizance under these sections must now comply with BNSS safeguards.
Analytical Insights
Why This Judgment Matters
- Strengthens due process: Accused cannot be blindsided by cognizance orders.
- Clarifies transition law: Complaints filed before BNSS but cognizance taken after must follow BNSS.
- Limits ED powers: Reinforces judicial oversight in money laundering prosecutions.
Implications
- For Enforcement Directorate: Must ensure accused are heard before cognizance.
- For Special Courts: Cognizance orders without hearing are void.
- For Accused Persons: Provides stronger grounds to challenge cognizance in PMLA cases.
FAQs on Key Legal Points
Q1: What does Section 223(1) BNSS require?
It requires that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before a court takes cognizance of an offence.
Q2: Does BNSS apply to complaints filed before July 1, 2024?
Yes, if cognizance is taken after BNSS commenced, its provisions apply.
Q3: What happens if cognizance is taken without hearing the accused?
Such cognizance is invalid and vitiates proceedings.
Q4: Did the savings clause under Section 531 BNSS protect this case?
No. The Court held that numbering a complaint is not an “inquiry,” so the savings clause did not apply.
Q5: How does this ruling affect PMLA prosecutions?
It ensures stricter compliance with fair trial rights, requiring accused to be heard before cognizance is taken.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant safeguard for accused persons in money laundering cases. It clarifies that BNSS provisions apply to cognizance taken after July 1, 2024, even if complaints were filed earlier, thereby reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of fair trial.