Case Name: PARVINDER SINGH V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Petition Number: SLP(CRL) NO. 12055 OF 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 519
Date of Judgment: 19.05.2026
Coram: HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. MM SUNDRESH & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
Relevant Provisions: Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 2(1)(k) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
INTRODUCTION
The primary question before the Supreme Court in the present matter was whether the procedural safeguards introduced under Sections 223 to 228 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], particularly the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1), apply to prosecution complaints filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]. The Court further examined whether mere filing and numbering of a complaint prior to the BNSS constituted an ‘inquiry’ attracting the saving clause under Section 531(2)(a). The Court ultimately held that BNSS safeguards apply to PMLA complaints and that cognizance taken without granting a hearing was legally unsustainable.
FACTS
The appeal arose from a prosecution initiated against the appellant under the PMLA after registration of an ECIR and his subsequent arrest. A prosecution complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA was filed before the designated Special Court prior to the commencement of the BNSS. The complaint was initially registered as a miscellaneous case and listed for consideration on cognizance. Owing to the Presiding Officer being on recess, the matter was adjourned, and on 2nd July 2024, after the BNSS had come into force, the Special Court took cognizance of the offences and re-registered the matter as a Special Sessions Trial.
The appellant subsequently sought recall of the cognizance order contending that the mandatory requirement under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, namely grant of an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance, had not been complied with. The Special Court rejected the plea and proceeded to frame charges. In revision, the High Court held that Section 223 BNSS was inapplicable since the proceedings had commenced before the BNSS came into force and were therefore saved by Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. Aggrieved by this order of the High Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Apex Court.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The appellant contended that the Special Court took cognizance without granting him a hearing mandated under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. They placed reliance on Kushal Kumar Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement [2025 SCC Online SC 1221] to argue that since Sections 223–228 BNSS substantially reiterate Sections 200–205 CrPC and are not inconsistent with the PMLA, they apply to PMLA proceedings. They further argued that merely because the Special Court had directed the prosecution complaint filed by the respondent to be numbered and, thereafter, put up the case for taking cognizance, would not amount to an ‘inquiry’ and therefore Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS would have no application.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that since the PMLA is a self-contained statute, the proceedings before the Special Court are governed independently of the BNSS, and urged the reconsideration of the decision in Kushal Kumar Agrawal. Without prejudice to the earlier submission, the respondents also argued that since the prosecution complaint had been filed and proceedings initiated before commencement of the BNSS, Section 531(2)(a) preserved applicability of the CrPC and therefore the order of the High Court suffered from no infirmities.
ISSUES
1. Whether the procedural safeguards contained in Sections 223 to 228 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including the requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance under the first proviso to Section 223(1), are applicable to prosecution complaints filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002?
- Whether mere filing and numbering of a prosecution complaint prior to the commencement of the BNSS constitutes an “inquiry” so as to attract the saving clause under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS and preserve the applicability of the CrPC procedure?
JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Court at the outset made a detailed perusal of the relevant provisions of the PMLA and the BNSS and held that the issue regarding applicability of the procedure governing complaints under the CrPC, now reflected in Sections 223 to 228 BNSS, to proceedings under the PMLA was no longer res integra in view of the decisions in Tarsem Lal v. ED [(2024) 7 SCC 61], Yash Tuteja & Ors. v. Union of India [(2024) 8 SCC 465] and Kushal Kumar Agarwal. The court rejected the respondent’s contention that the PMLA constituted a self-contained code excluding the operation of the BNSS, while observing that there was no inconsistency between the procedural provisions of the BNSS and the PMLA. It held that once a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA is filed, the Special Court is required to follow the procedure applicable to complaints, including the safeguards contained in Section 223 BNSS. The Court further observed that dispensing with such safeguards would seriously affect both the rights of the accused and the powers exercisable by the Special Court.
With respect to the second issue, the Court held that mere numbering of the complaint and posting the matter for cognizance prior to commencement of the BNSS did not amount to an ‘inquiry’ under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS, as there was no judicial application of mind. Consequently, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS had no application. Since cognizance was admittedly taken on 2nd July 2024 without granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing mandated under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, the cognizance order stood vitiated. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of cognizance.
CONCLUSION
The judgment affirmed that proceedings under the PMLA are not insulated from the procedural safeguards contained in the BNSS. It clarified that once a prosecution complaint is filed under the PMLA, the Special Court must follow the complaint procedure prescribed under the BNSS, including the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1). The Court further held that mere filing or numbering of a complaint does not constitute an ‘inquiry’ for purposes of the saving clause under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. Consequently, cognizance taken without compliance with the statutory hearing requirement was held unsustainable.
