PMLA Accused Must Get ED’s Relied-On Documents Before Cognizance, Madras HC Holds Under BNSS

The petitioner, arrayed as the fourth accused in an unnumbered PMLA complaint, sought an order directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide copies of the documents relied upon in its complaint before cognizance was taken.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, rejected the request, relying on *Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement*.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS required a meaningful pre-cognizance hearing, which included access to the relied-upon documents.

The ED opposed the petition, arguing that document disclosure was available only after cognizance.

The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS bars a Magistrate from taking cognizance on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard; the Court treated this safeguard as mandatory and applicable to PMLA complaints.

Sections 223–228 BNSS apply to PMLA proceedings where not inconsistent with the PMLA, consistently with Section 65 PMLA and the procedural framework for complaints.

The Court relied on *Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement* for the applicability and mandatory character of the pre-cognizance hearing, and distinguished *Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement* as concerning disclosure at the post-cognizance stage under the earlier procedural regime.

It held that the hearing must be meaningful, requiring disclosure of the relied-upon documents, but is confined to whether the complaint and those documents disclose a prima facie case or face a legal bar; it is not a trial of the defence or an assessment of evidentiary merits.

The Court held that *Sarla Gupta* did not determine whether relied-upon documents must be supplied before cognizance, because it addressed disclosure after cognizance and under the CrPC.

Given that Section 223 BNSS applies to PMLA complaints and creates a mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, the Court reasoned that withholding the documents on which the complaint rests would make that hearing ineffective.

It therefore adopted the view that disclosure of relied-upon documents is necessary for the accused to address whether a prima facie case exists, while clarifying that the hearing does not permit the accused to lead a defence or invite the court to weigh the evidence.

It quashed the trial court’s order and directed the ED to furnish the petitioner copies of all relied-upon documents within four weeks of receiving the order; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.