The Madras High Court has held that an accused in a money laundering case has a statutory right to receive copies of documents relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) even before the court takes cognizance of the complaint. The Court ruled that an opportunity of hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, cannot be meaningful unless the accused is provided with the relevant prosecution documents.
Background
The matter arose from a petition filed by R. Anandha Ramakrishnan, who was arrayed as the fourth accused in proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. He had approached the Madurai Bench after the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, rejected his application seeking copies of documents relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate.
The trial court had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement to conclude that the accused could receive the documents only after cognizance was taken.
Challenging this decision, the petitioner argued that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS specifically provides an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance. Such a hearing, he submitted, would be ineffective without access to the documents supporting the prosecution complaint.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose and Justice Rajnish Pathiyil examined the scope of the pre-cognizance hearing under the BNSS. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Sarla Gupta, observing that it concerned the post-cognizance stage and did not directly examine the newly introduced safeguard under Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
The Bench also considered the Supreme Court's decision in Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, which recognised the applicability of the BNSS hearing requirement to PMLA proceedings.
Emphasising the principles of natural justice, the Court observed:
"Under the principles of natural justice, specifically, the doctrine of Audi alterum partem (hear the other side), any hearing cannot be considered fair, meaningful or reasonable unless the defending party knows the exact case they have to meet. The scope of the Audi alterum partem principle encompasses several core legal concepts. An opportunity of hearing is not a mere empty formality."
The Bench further clarified that receiving documents does not permit the accused to conduct a full defence examination at the cognizance stage. The court's consideration must remain limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists.
It observed:
"The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS has not altered this settled position. It only enables the accused to point out, before cognizance is taken, that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged, or if there is a legal bar to proceed with it. The right to be heard is a shield for the accused. It is not a sword with which he may dissect the prosecution’s case or project his defence at the threshold."
The High Court held that the petitioner had a statutory right to receive copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the Bench quashed the Madurai Sessions Court's order dated August 31, 2026, and allowed the criminal original petition.
It directed the Enforcement Directorate to furnish copies of all relied-upon documents to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Case Details
Case Title: R. Anandha Ramakrishnan v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: CRL OP(MD) No. 21716 of 2026
Judges: Justice Abdul Quddhose and Justice Rajnish Pathiyil
Decision Date: November 5, 2026
