Supreme Court Affirms Right to a Hearing Before Cognizance in PMLA Complaints

In Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519 (SLP (Crl.) No. 12055 of 2025), decided on 19 May 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS requires an accused to be heard before a Special Court takes cognizance of a PMLA complaint. Non-compliance renders the cognizance void ab initio. The judgment also resolves the transitional question: it applies the hearing requirement to a complaint filed before 1 July 2024 where cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force.

The ED filed its complaint on 24 June 2024. The Special Court listed the matter for cognizance and following an adjournment, took cognizance on 2 July 2024 — one day after the BNSS superseded the CrPC. Singh was produced from custody but was not heard. His recall application was rejected as a delaying tactic, and charges were framed on 22 March 2025. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the cognizance order, holding that the proceedings had commenced before the BNSS and were governed by Section 531(2)(a). The Supreme Court disagreed.

Why the hearing requirement applies

The ED argued that the PMLA is a standalone enactment and the general complaint procedure should not apply. The Court rejected this: Section 44(1)(b) permits direct cognizance, but Section 46 applies the general criminal procedure except where the PMLA provides otherwise, and Section 65 incorporates that procedure insofar as consistent with the PMLA. Section 71’s overriding effect operates only where there is inconsistency; it does not exclude every procedural protection under the general law.

Reaffirming Tarsem Lal, (2024) 7 SCC 61, Yash Tuteja, (2024) 8 SCC 465, and Kushal Kumar Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221, the Apex Court held that Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC — now Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS — apply to PMLA proceedings. The first proviso to Section 223(1) prohibits cognizance without hearing the accused. This protection is substantive and forms part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The word “shall” is mandatory. The ED’s argument that Singh had not shown prejudice also failed: denial of the hearing is an illegality vitiating the proceedings, not a curable irregularity.

The transitional question

Section 531(2)(a) preserves proceedings pending before the BNSS commenced; such proceedings continue under the CrPC. The Court held that this prevents piecemeal application of the two codes but does not automatically bring every older prosecution under the CrPC. Merely filing and numbering a complaint does not amount to a judicial “inquiry” under Section 2(1)(k); an inquiry requires application of judicial mind. Relying on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, the Court distinguished receipt of material from its judicial consideration. The Special Court’s earlier order merely directed numbering — a ministerial act that did not commence an inquiry. Cognizance was taken only on 2 July 2024, when the BNSS was in force.

Operative directions and implications

The Court set aside both orders and remanded for fresh cognizance proceedings within eight weeks, without addressing the merits. For practitioners, where the BNSS applies, the accused must be heard before cognizance; production from custody does not satisfy the requirement. For older complaints, if no judicial inquiry had commenced before 1 July 2024, the BNSS hearing requirement applies. The seriousness of money laundering allegations cannot excuse its omission.