Cognizance taken without hearing the accused under Section 223 BNSS is vitiated.

The petitioner challenged, under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the order dated 21 March 2025 passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, Patna, in Special Trial No. (PMLA) 04/2025, arising from Serial No. 12/2025.

By that order, the Special Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the petitioner and other accused persons.

The petitioner contended that he had not been given an opportunity of hearing before cognizance was taken, contrary to Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

The Enforcement Directorate did not oppose remand of the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

1. Whether the Special Court’s order taking cognizance was vitiated because the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 223(1) of the BNSS?

2. Whether the order taking cognizance was required to be set aside in respect of all accused persons, including those who had not joined the revision petition?

Section 223(1) of the BNSS confers a statutory right upon an accused to be heard before cognizance is taken, reflecting the principles of natural justice and the rule that no person should be condemned unheard.

The Court relied on Kushal Kumar Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221, and Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 19 May 2026, for the proposition that denial of the statutory hearing at the cognizance stage is an illegality, not a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice.

The Court also followed Pushpraj Bajaj v. Union of India & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3148, where a similar cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the accused under Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

The Special Court took cognizance of the PMLA complaint without providing the petitioner the hearing mandated by Section 223(1) of the BNSS.

Since the provision grants a valuable statutory right grounded in natural justice, the absence of such hearing rendered the cognizance order legally unsustainable, irrespective of whether the petitioner separately demonstrated prejudice.

The High Court therefore applied the principle laid down in Parvinder Singh and followed its earlier decision in Pushpraj Bajaj.

The Court declined to set aside the cognizance order in favour of all accused merely because the petitioner requested such relief, since the other accused were not before the Court; however, it directed that they too be heard if they had not previously been afforded the statutory opportunity.

The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the prosecution case or other issues.

The matter was remanded to the Special Judge, PMLA, Patna, for a fresh decision on cognizance in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, after hearing the petitioner and, if necessary, the other accused persons who had not been given an opportunity of hearing.

The criminal revision was accordingly allowed.