![Cognizance of PMLA Complaint Without Hearing Accused Under Section 223 BNSS Is Void: Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement [2026 INSC 519]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: A PMLA Special Court that takes cognizance of a prosecution complaint on or after 01.07.2024 must first hear the accused under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, even if the complaint was filed before the BNSS came into force. Merely numbering the complaint and listing it for cognizance is not an "inquiry" saved by Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. Cognizance taken without the hearing is void, and the accused need not show prejudice.
In Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 INSC 519), the Supreme Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is substantive and mandatory, and that cognizance taken without hearing the accused is void ab initio (para 27). Sections 223 to 228 BNSS apply to complaints under the PMLA, and the request to refer Kushal Kumar Agarwal to a larger Bench was rejected (paras 31–33). As the Special Court took cognizance on 02.07.2024, after the BNSS came into force, and its earlier direction to number the complaint was only a ministerial act, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS did not save the proceeding (paras 34, 36–37). A Bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the accused's appeal (paras 39–41).
Status: High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 19.05.2025 and Special Court's cognizance order dated 02.07.2024 set aside; Special Court to hear the appellant and proceed from the stage of cognizance within 8 weeks; appeal allowed (paras 39–41).
Headnote: Hearing the Accused Before Cognizance of a PMLA Complaint
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 2(1)(k), 4, 5, 210, 213, 223(1) first proviso, 506, 511 and 531(2)(a) – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 43, 44, 46, 65 and 71 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 200 to 205 – Prosecution complaint filed before 01.07.2024 – Cognizance taken after BNSS came into force – Right of accused to be heard before cognizance – Meaning of "inquiry" – Savings clause – Prejudice.
Held: (i) The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is substantive in nature; it confers on the accused a right to be heard before cognizance, which is part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21; the word "shall" is mandatory, and cognizance taken without compliance is void ab initio (para 27).
(ii) Section 531(2)(a) BNSS is meant to give prospective application to the BNSS and to avoid piecemeal application of the CrPC and BNSS; a substantive right under the BNSS enures to an accused against whom none of the proceedings listed in Section 531(2)(a) had been initiated (paras 28–29).
(iii) Following Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal, Sections 200 to 205 CrPC (now Sections 223 to 228 BNSS) apply to proceedings under the PMLA; the ASG's plea to refer Kushal Kumar Agarwal to a larger Bench was rejected (paras 30–33).
(iv) A mere ministerial act is not an "inquiry" under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS; an inquiry commences only with the application of judicial mind. The Special Court's direction of 24.06.2024 to number the complaint and list it for cognizance was not an inquiry (paras 34–36).
(v) As cognizance was taken on 02.07.2024 without hearing the appellant, the omission is an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, not a mere irregularity under Sections 506 or 511 BNSS; the accused need not show prejudice (para 37).
(vi) The appellant, who sought recall at the earliest point of time, cannot be faulted for the delay (para 38).
(paras 27–40)
Case Details: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 INSC 519)
Final Outcome: Criminal Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and the cognizance order set aside; Special Court to hear the appellant from the stage of cognizance within 8 weeks.
Case: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 519
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12055 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 19 May 2026
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh (author) and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Relevant Acts & Sections: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 2(1)(k), 4, 5, 210, 213, 223, 506, 511 and 531; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3, 4, 43, 44, 45, 46, 65 and 71; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 200 to 205; Constitution of India – Article 21
Impugned Order: Judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissing CRLR No. 218/2025 (against the cognizance order) and partly allowing CRLR No. 183/2025 (against the order refusing recall) (paras 2, 7–8)
Counsel: Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement; learned Senior Counsel for the appellant (paras 9, 11)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is substantive and mandatory; cognizance without hearing the accused is void ab initio (para 27).
- Sections 223 to 228 BNSS (earlier Sections 200 to 205 CrPC) apply to complaints under the PMLA; Kushal Kumar Agarwal need not be reconsidered by a larger Bench (paras 31–33).
- Numbering a complaint and listing it for cognizance is a ministerial act, not an "inquiry" under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS (paras 34, 36).
- Where the complaint was filed before 01.07.2024 but cognizance was taken after it, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS does not save the proceeding under the CrPC (paras 36–37).
- Non-hearing before cognizance is an illegality, not a curable irregularity; prejudice need not be shown (para 37).
Brief Facts of the Case
The Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR against the appellant on 24.07.2023 and arrested him on 27.04.2024. It filed a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 PMLA for offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 PMLA on 24.06.2024. The same day, the Special Court directed that the complaint be registered as a miscellaneous case and fixed it for hearing on cognizance on 28.06.2024 (para 3).
On 28.06.2024 the matter was adjourned to 02.07.2024 as the Presiding Officer was on recess. The BNSS replaced the CrPC with effect from 01.07.2024. On 02.07.2024 the Special Court took cognizance in the presence of the Special Public Prosecutor and the appellant, who was produced from judicial custody, and the case was re-registered as Special Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2024 (paras 4–5).
On 24.12.2024 the appellant applied for recall of the cognizance order, alleging non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. The Special Court dismissed it on 22.03.2025 as a dilatory tactic and framed charges. On revision, the High Court held on 19.05.2025 that Section 223 BNSS did not apply because the proceedings began before the BNSS, relying on Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, though it quashed the framing of charges and remanded that issue (paras 6–8).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether Sections 223 to 228 BNSS (earlier Sections 200 to 205 CrPC) apply to complaints under the PMLA, and whether Kushal Kumar Agarwal should be referred to a larger Bench (paras 9, 11, 30–33).
- Whether the Special Court's direction to number the complaint before 01.07.2024 was an "inquiry" saved by Section 531(2)(a) BNSS (paras 10, 12, 34–36).
- Whether the accused must show prejudice from not being heard before cognizance (paras 13, 37).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Nature of the proviso (paras 26–27): The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS bars cognizance unless the accused is given an opportunity of being heard. Though placed in a procedural chapter, it is substantive, as it confers a right forming part of the fair-trial guarantee under Article 21. The word "shall" is mandatory, and non-compliance renders cognizance void ab initio.
Purpose of the savings clause (paras 28–29): Section 531(2)(a) BNSS saves proceedings already initiated under the CrPC so that they reach their conclusion under the CrPC, avoiding piecemeal application. Where no such proceeding had been initiated, the better right under the BNSS applies prospectively, not retrospectively.
BNSS complaint provisions apply to PMLA (paras 30–33): The Court considered the point as a pure question of law though not raised below. Excluding Sections 223 to 228 BNSS would leave the Special Court without power to dismiss a complaint, postpone or issue process, or dispense with appearance. The Court agreed with Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal and declined the ASG's plea for reconsideration.
No inquiry before cognizance (paras 34–36): Taking cognizance is an application of judicial mind; a ministerial act is not an inquiry. Relying on Hardeep Singh, which the Court said actually militated against the ASG, it held that the order of 24.06.2024 numbering the complaint and listing it for cognizance did not amount to an inquiry under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS.
No need to show prejudice (para 37): Cognizance was taken on 02.07.2024, after the BNSS came into force, without hearing the appellant. The mandate protecting an accused whose liberty is at stake cannot be dispensed with; the defect is an illegality vitiating the proceedings and not a mere irregularity under Sections 506 or 511 BNSS.
Seriousness of allegations no answer (para 38): Though the allegations are serious, non-compliance with the proviso vitiates the cognizance order. The appellant sought recall at the earliest point and cannot be blamed for the delay.
Final Outcome and Directions
- High Court judgment dated 19.05.2025 and Special Court's cognizance order dated 02.07.2024 set aside (para 39).
- Special Court to give the appellant an opportunity of hearing and proceed from the stage of taking cognizance (para 40).
- The exercise to be completed within 8 weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment (para 40).
- Appeal allowed; pending applications disposed of (paras 41–42).
Legal Principle Laid Down
The accused's right to be heard before cognizance under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is substantive and mandatory, and applies to complaints under the PMLA. Where cognizance is taken on or after 01.07.2024, the BNSS governs even if the complaint was filed earlier, because numbering a complaint is a ministerial act and not an inquiry saved by Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. Cognizance taken without the hearing is void, and no prejudice need be shown (paras 27–29, 33–34, 36–37).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61 – Followed – Sections 200 to 205 CrPC govern a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA. Discussed at para 32.
- Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, (2024) 8 SCC 465 – Followed – Special Court must apply Sections 200 to 204 CrPC to a PMLA complaint. Discussed at para 32.
- Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221 – Followed; reference to larger Bench declined – Section 223 BNSS applies to a PMLA complaint filed after 01.07.2024. Discussed at paras 31–32.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 – Relied upon – no inquiry without judicial application of mind. Discussed at paras 35–36.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 27: "We further hold that the word “shall” occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature, which enures to the benefit of an accused. Resultantly, cognizance of an offence taken by a Court without due compliance of the aforestated proviso would be void ab initio."
Para 28: "In other words, once a proceeding such as an appeal, application, investigation, inquiry or trial is initiated under the CrPC, then the same must meet its logical conclusion under the CrPC itself."
Para 33: "Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC (now Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS) would be applicable to proceedings under the PMLA."
Para 34: "A mere ministerial act cannot be termed as an “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS. Taking cognizance is nothing but an application of judicial mind. So long as the application of the judicial mind is not exercised, an inquiry cannot commence."
Para 37: "The mandate of a legislation which ensures the right of an accused to a fair trial, whose liberty is at stake, cannot be dispensed with."
Para 38: "However, non-compliance with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS vitiates the very order taking cognizance, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For accused in PMLA cases: Where cognizance was taken on or after 01.07.2024 without a hearing, the cognizance order can be challenged as void, even if the complaint was filed earlier (paras 27, 36–37).
- For the Enforcement Directorate: The plea that the PMLA is a stand-alone code excluding the BNSS complaint provisions has been rejected (paras 31–33).
- For Special Courts: Registering or numbering a complaint does not start an inquiry; the accused must be heard before cognizance (paras 34, 36).
- For trial courts generally: Non-hearing before cognizance is an illegality, so the "no prejudice" argument will not save the order (para 37).
FAQs on Hearing the Accused Before Cognizance Under Section 223 BNSS
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement?
It set aside the Special Court's cognizance order and the High Court judgment, and directed the Special Court to hear the appellant and proceed afresh from the stage of cognizance within 8 weeks (paras 39–40).
2. Does Section 223 BNSS apply to PMLA complaints?
Yes. Sections 223 to 228 BNSS (earlier Sections 200 to 205 CrPC) apply to proceedings under the PMLA (para 33).
3. What if the complaint was filed before the BNSS but cognizance was taken after?
The BNSS applies. Numbering the complaint before 01.07.2024 was a ministerial act, not an inquiry, so Section 531(2)(a) BNSS did not save the proceeding under the CrPC (paras 34, 36–37).
4. What is the effect of taking cognizance without hearing the accused?
The cognizance is void ab initio; the proviso is substantive and mandatory (para 27).
5. Must the accused show prejudice?
No. The omission is an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, not a mere irregularity under Sections 506 or 511 BNSS (para 37).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 519, Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, Section 223 BNSS, first proviso, hearing before cognizance, PMLA complaint, Section 44(1)(b) PMLA, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, savings clause, inquiry, Section 2(1)(k) BNSS, Kushal Kumar Agarwal, Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja, Hardeep Singh, void ab initio, Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).