The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Special Court's order taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint against former NHPC official Harjeet Singh Puri, holding that mandatory safeguards under Section 223(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, must be followed when prosecuting public servants in applicable cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Background
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a prosecution complaint against Puri following a CBI case concerning allegations of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Puri, who had served as Chief General Manager (Finance) at the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), challenged the Special Judge's order dated 23 April 2026, which took cognizance of the alleged money laundering offence and summoned him and his wife.
Puri argued that the Special Court had proceeded without obtaining the factual report required under Section 223(2)(b) BNSS from an officer senior to him. The ED opposed the petition, pointing to the prosecution sanction granted by the competent authority and the opportunities allegedly provided to Puri to explain his position.
Justice Sumeet Goel examined whether the procedural safeguards under Section 223(2) BNSS apply to PMLA complaints and whether a prosecution sanction can replace the required report from a superior officer.
Relying on the legal framework governing PMLA proceedings and relevant Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that the BNSS safeguards apply to such complaints. The provision requires the public servant to have an opportunity to explain the circumstances and the Court to receive a factual report from a superior officer before taking cognizance.
The Court emphasised that the two safeguards serve different purposes, observing that “both must be given full effect in letter and spirit.” It clarified that a prosecution sanction under Section 218 BNSS does not remove the separate obligation to obtain the report prescribed by Section 223(2)(b).
The Court also laid down a timeline for such reports. A superior officer must submit the report within 30 days of receiving the Court's order. An extension of up to 15 additional days may be granted for sufficient and compelling reasons.
The High Court found that although Puri had been given an opportunity of hearing, the Special Court had not sought the mandatory report from his superior officer. It rejected the ED's objection that Puri could not raise this legal issue for the first time before the High Court.
Accordingly, Justice Goel quashed the cognizance order dated 23 April 2026 and directed the Special Judge, Gurugram, to pass a fresh order after complying with Section 223(2)(b) BNSS.
The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case.
Case Details
- Case Title: Harjeet Singh Puri v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Case Number: CRM-M-41189-2026
- Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
- Decision Date: 27 October 2026
