PMLA Offence u/s 3 r/w S.4: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes order taking Cognizance for Lack of Hearing Mandated u/s 223(1) of BNSS [Read Order]
The bench directed the applicant/revisioner and the respondent-ED to appear before the Special Court on 05.07.2025
![PMLA Offence u/s 3 r/w S.4: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes order taking Cognizance for Lack of Hearing Mandated u/s 223(1) of BNSS [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/29/2056137-pmla-offence-chhattisgarh-hc-bnss-taxscan.webp "PMLA Offence u/s 3 r/w S.4: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes order taking Cognizance for Lack of Hearing Mandated u/s 223(1) of BNSS [Read Order]")
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in its recent case allowed the petition challenging the prosecution of EnforcementDepartment ( ED ) against the applicant for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA). The court set aside the order only on the ground of non compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the...
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in its recent case allowed the petition challenging the prosecution of EnforcementDepartment ( ED ) against the applicant for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA). The court set aside the order only on the ground of non compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur (C.G.) in the prosecution complaint filed, whereby the trial Court took cognizance against Arun Pati Tripathi, the applicant for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The prosecution complaint was filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the PMLA’) on 05.10.2024. On 05.10.2024, the trial Court took cognizance against the applicant and on 07.02.2025, the Court quashed the order of cognizance and remanded back the matter to the Special Court with liberty granted to the respondent-ED to proceed further before the trial Court for taking cognizance a fresh against the applicant. On 07.03.2025, the Special Court passed the order of cognizance against the applicant without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant which is bad in law.
It is argued that in the matter of Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , it is held that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
Counsel for the respondent-ED not opposes the submission as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS because the Supreme Court in the matter of Kushal Kumar Agarwal has already been dealt with the matter and held that when an opportunity of being heard was not given by the Special Court to the applicant before taking cognizance of the offence it is against the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
A single bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed that “It is an admitted fact that the present complaint was filed on 05.10.2024 and Special Judge has took cognizance on 07.03.2025 against the present applicant without giving opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance, therefore, in the light of precedent, the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 is set aside only on the ground of non compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.”
The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint as well as on the prosecution sanction order. The bench directed the applicant/revisioner and the respondent-ED to appear before the Special Court on 05.07.2025, so that the Special Judge can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
