Mandatory Pre-Cognizance Hearing Under Section 223 BNSS Applies to Prosecution Complaints Under PMLA

The Petitioner was initially arrested on 13.03.2024 by the NIA for alleged involvement in a transnational conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India in Manipur

On 20.02.2024, the High Court declared the NIA arrest illegal for non-furnishing of grounds

Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an investigation based on the NIA’s supplementary chargesheet

The Petitioner was formally arrested by the ED on 16.10.2024 while in judicial custody at Rohini Jail

He was produced before a Duty Magistrate on 17.10.2024 and subsequently remanded by the Special Court

On 13.12.2024, the ED filed a Prosecution Complaint under the PMLA

The Special Court took cognizance on 18.12.2024 without providing the Petitioner a pre-cognizance hearing, leading to this petition under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC)

Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, which prohibits a Magistrate from taking cognizance on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard

Section 44(1)(d) and Section 65 of the PMLA, which mandate that the BNSS/CrPC applies to PMLA trials unless specifically excluded

Precedents cited include Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. ED (2025) and Parvinder Singh v. ED (2026), which established that the proviso to Section 223 BNSS applies to PMLA complaints filed after July 1, 2024

Section 187 BNSS (pre-cognizance) and Section 346 BNSS (post-cognizance), both of which limit remand to fifteen days at a time

The court rejected the Petitioner's challenge to the initial arrest, finding that Section 302 BNSS was complied with as the Petitioner was produced within 24 hours of his formal arrest in jail

The court found the cognizance order dated 18.12.2024 fatally flawed. Despite the ED's argument that PMLA is a sui generis statute, the court held that since the Prosecution Complaint was filed after the enforcement of the BNSS on 01.07.2024, the mandate of Section 223 was absolute

The Special Court’s refusal to grant a pre-cognizance hearing directly contravened the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kushal Kumar Agarwal and Parvinder Singh

Concerning the remand orders post-cognizance, the High Court noted they were for two months at a time, which patently violated the 15-day limit prescribed in Section 346 BNSS

The court held that while this was a "mere irregularity" given that the Petitioner had not yet secured bail, it did not warrant a quashing of the entire proceeding or immediate release under Section 528

The Special Judge (PMLA) was directed to provide a pre-cognizance hearing to the Petitioner as per Section 223 BNSS; the court declined to grant bail but left the Petitioner at liberty to move a regular bail application before the Trial Court