PMLA accused must be heard before cognizance on complaints filed after BNSS took effect, Madras High Court rules

The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on 27 March 2025.

The Special Judge took cognizance on 30 April 2025 and arrayed the petitioner as an accused without first giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner’s discharge petition was dismissed on 12 June 2026, prompting this revision.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement; the Enforcement Directorate argued that, because the ECIR pre-dated the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 531 preserved the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

1. Whether Section 223(1) of the BNSS required the Special Judge to give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of the PMLA complaint filed after 1 July 2024.

2. Whether the fact that the ECIR was registered before the BNSS came into force meant that the CrPC, rather than the BNSS, governed the cognizance proceedings.

Section 223(1) of the BNSS provides that a Magistrate may not take cognizance of an offence on complaint without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard; the Supreme Court held that this proviso applies to a PMLA complaint filed after 1 July 2024 because such complaints are governed by the complaint procedure in Sections 200–204 of the CrPC, corresponding to Chapter XVI of the BNSS (Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221).

The Court also relied on Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 533, and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 7 SCC 61, on the application of the complaint procedure to PMLA complaints.

The Court treated the filing date of the complaint—not the date of the ECIR—as decisive for applying Section 223 of the BNSS.

Because the complaint was filed on 27 March 2025, after the BNSS came into force, the Special Judge was required to give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance.

The Court found that cognizance had been taken without that opportunity and was therefore impermissible under the rule stated in Kushal Kumar Agarwal.

It rejected the respondent’s reliance on G. Ganesan and Parvinder Singh, noting that the former was under challenge before the Supreme Court and the latter had been set aside.

It set aside the 30 April 2025 cognizance order and the 12 June 2026 order dismissing the discharge petition, restored the complaint to its original file number, and directed the Special Judge to proceed in accordance with law.

The revision was partly allowed.