The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that an accused person must be given an opportunity of hearing before a court takes cognizance of a complaint under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court set aside a cognizance order passed in an NDPS case after finding that the mandatory requirement under Section 223(1) BNSS was not followed.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an application filed by Shatrughan Kumar under Section 528 BNSS challenging a July 14, 2025 order passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Lucknow. The case related to offences under Sections 8(c), 20, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The applicant argued that the Special Court took cognizance of the complaint filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) without granting him a prior hearing, despite the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS making such hearing mandatory.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the complaint was instituted after BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, making compliance with Section 223 compulsory. Reliance was also placed on recent Supreme Court and High Court rulings interpreting similar provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Opposing the plea, counsel for the NCB argued that the accused had already been remanded on the same day the cognizance order was passed and later participated in proceedings when charges were framed on August 8, 2025. According to the agency, the applicant had adequate opportunity to challenge the order earlier and could not later claim denial of hearing.
Justice Brij Raj Singh examined Section 223(1) BNSS and compared the NDPS provision with Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Enforcement Directorate had already clarified that the provisions relating to complaints under BNSS apply to complaints filed under special statutes like the PMLA.
The Court observed that Section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act is “pari materia” with the PMLA provision and therefore the same legal principle would apply in NDPS complaint cases as well.
Referring to the impugned order, the bench noted that the Special Judge had merely recorded that "सुना तथा परिवाद के साथ संलग्न समस्त प्रपत्रों का अवलोकन किया" (Heard, and perused all documents annexed with the complaint). The High Court found no indication that the accused was given an opportunity to file objections or make submissions before cognizance was taken.
“The applicant could have been afforded an opportunity of hearing by calling objection and thereafter, order could have been passed in a speaking manner,” the Court observed.
Allowing the application, the High Court set aside the cognizance order dated July 14, 2025 insofar as it concerned the applicant. The Court directed Shatrughan Kumar to appear before the Special Judge on May 29, 2026 along with his objections, if any.
The Special Court was further directed to pass an order afresh after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 223(1) BNSS.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shatrughan Kumar vs Narcotics Control Bureau Through Its Regional Office, Lucknow
Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 1880 of 2026
Judge: Justice Brij Raj Singh
Decision Date: May 19, 2026
