The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot take cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without first giving the accused an opportunity of hearing, as required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
A bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court and a Special PMLA Court against Parvinder Singh, holding that the mandatory safeguard under Section 223(1) of the BNSS had not been followed.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had registered an ECIR against Parvinder Singh in July 2023. He was later arrested in April 2024. The ED filed its prosecution complaint before the Special Court on June 24, 2024 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
Read Also:- SC Rejects Waitlisted Candidate’s Claim To Principal Post After Repeal Of Old Law
The matter was initially listed for cognizance before the Special Court while the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was still in force. However, the court ultimately took cognizance on July 2, 2024, after the BNSS had come into effect from July 1, 2024.
Parvinder Singh later challenged the cognizance order, arguing that he was never given a hearing before cognizance was taken, despite the new requirement introduced under the BNSS.
The main issue before the court was whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS applied to PMLA complaints where proceedings had begun before the BNSS came into force but cognizance was taken afterward.
The ED argued that PMLA is a special law and that proceedings had already started before July 1, 2024. It claimed the old CrPC provisions should continue to apply.
The appellant, however, argued that the right of hearing introduced under Section 223 of the BNSS was mandatory and applicable because cognizance was taken only after the BNSS became operational.
Read Also:- SC Says Multiple FIRs on Same Allegations Cause Prejudice, Orders Consolidation
The Supreme Court rejected the ED’s stand and held that the hearing requirement under Section 223(1) of the BNSS is substantive in nature and directly connected to the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench observed,
“The word ‘shall’ occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature.”
The court further clarified that merely registering the complaint or posting it for hearing before July 1, 2024 would not amount to an “inquiry” under the BNSS. According to the judgment, judicial application of mind is necessary before an inquiry can be said to have commenced.
The bench also reaffirmed earlier Supreme Court rulings which held that provisions relating to complaint cases under the CrPC - now mirrored in the BNSS - apply to proceedings under the PMLA as long as there is no inconsistency with the special statute.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court judgment dated May 19, 2025 as well as the Special Court’s cognizance order dated July 2, 2024.
The court directed the Special Court to hear the accused afresh at the stage of cognizance and complete the exercise within eight weeks.
The bench stated that non-compliance with Section 223(1) of the BNSS was “an illegality that would vitiate the very proceedings.”
Case Title: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12055 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: May 19, 2026
